Evidence mapPaperPMID 42479162Full record

ReviewPediatric radiology2026

Artificial intelligence for pediatric neuroimaging.

Mai-Lan Ho

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Pediatric radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Mai-Lan HoRadiology, University of Missouri, 1 Hospital Dr., Columbia, MO, 65212, USA. mailanho@gmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9455-1350

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing health care, particularly in radiology for which large retrospective electronic datasets are naturally suited to training large machine and deep learning models. To date, the vast majority of United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-cleared AI software tools are geared toward radiology applications, with most in neuroradiology and very few in pediatric radiology. Pediatric innovations have historically lagged behind adults due to children's limited exam tolerance, small and rare datasets, age-related variability in normal and disease processes, and ethical/legal concerns for vulnerable populations. The chasm between research and clinical applications is further hampered by a smaller commercial market share in pediatrics. Nevertheless, understanding of AI successes and failures in adult neuroradiology can help inform progress in pediatric neuroradiology. Furthermore, the rise of generative AI can help overcome current limitations and enable complex multimodal pattern recognition for a broader variety of use cases. Human expert oversight will help mitigate AI risks including data and algorithmic bias, black-box errors, and regulatory gaps. In this review, we will discuss AI technical principles and pitfalls, relevant clinical tools, promising research advances, and future directions for pediatric neuroimaging. Key AI applications to be discussed include quality/safety, fetal, neonatal, hydrocephalus, malformations, tumors, epilepsy, demyelination, stroke, and trauma.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceChildNeuroimagingNeuroradiologyPediatricSoftware

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.