Swaminathan Kandaswamy, Lindsey A Knake, Adam Dziorny, Sean Hernandez, Allison B McCoy, Lauren M Hess, Evan Orenstein, Mia S White, Eric S Kirkendall, Matthew Molloy, Philip Hagedorn, Naveen Muthu, Avinash Murugan, Jonathan M Beus, Mark Mai, Brooke Luo, Juan Demetrio Chaparro
{"title":"Pediatric Predictive Artificial Intelligence Implemented in Clinical Practice from 2010-2021: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Swaminathan Kandaswamy, Lindsey A Knake, Adam Dziorny, Sean Hernandez, Allison B McCoy, Lauren M Hess, Evan Orenstein, Mia S White, Eric S Kirkendall, Matthew Molloy, Philip Hagedorn, Naveen Muthu, Avinash Murugan, Jonathan M Beus, Mark Mai, Brooke Luo, Juan Demetrio Chaparro","doi":"10.1055/a-2521-1508","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To review pediatric artificial intelligence (AI) implementation studies from 2010-2021 and analyze reported performance measures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed/Medline, Embase CINHAL, Cochrane Library CENTRAL, IEEE and Web of Science with controlled vocabulary.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>AI intervention in a pediatric clinical setting that learns from data (i.e., data-driven, as opposed to rule-based) and takes actions to make patient-specific recommendations; published between 01/2010 to 10/2021; must have agency (AI must provide guidance that affects clinical care, not merely running in background). We extracted study characteristics, target users, implementation setting, time span, and performance measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 126 articles reviewed as full text, 17 met inclusion criteria. Eight studies (47%) reported both clinical outcomes and process measures, six (35%) reported only process measures, and two (12%) reported only clinical outcomes. Five studies (30%) reported no difference in clinical outcomes with AI, four (24%) reported improvement in clinical outcomes compared to controls, two (12%) reported positive effects on clinical outcomes with use of AI but had no formal comparison or controls, and one (6%) reported poor clinical outcomes with AI. Twelve studies (71%) reported improvement in process measures, while two (12%) reported no improvement. Five (30%) studies reported on at least 1 human performance measure.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While there are many published pediatric AI models, the number of AI implementations is minimal with no standardized reporting of outcomes, care processes, or human performance measures. More comprehensive evaluations will help elucidate mechanisms of impact.</p>","PeriodicalId":48956,"journal":{"name":"Applied Clinical Informatics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Clinical Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2521-1508","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To review pediatric artificial intelligence (AI) implementation studies from 2010-2021 and analyze reported performance measures.
Methods: We searched PubMed/Medline, Embase CINHAL, Cochrane Library CENTRAL, IEEE and Web of Science with controlled vocabulary.
Inclusion criteria: AI intervention in a pediatric clinical setting that learns from data (i.e., data-driven, as opposed to rule-based) and takes actions to make patient-specific recommendations; published between 01/2010 to 10/2021; must have agency (AI must provide guidance that affects clinical care, not merely running in background). We extracted study characteristics, target users, implementation setting, time span, and performance measures.
Results: Of 126 articles reviewed as full text, 17 met inclusion criteria. Eight studies (47%) reported both clinical outcomes and process measures, six (35%) reported only process measures, and two (12%) reported only clinical outcomes. Five studies (30%) reported no difference in clinical outcomes with AI, four (24%) reported improvement in clinical outcomes compared to controls, two (12%) reported positive effects on clinical outcomes with use of AI but had no formal comparison or controls, and one (6%) reported poor clinical outcomes with AI. Twelve studies (71%) reported improvement in process measures, while two (12%) reported no improvement. Five (30%) studies reported on at least 1 human performance measure.
Conclusions: While there are many published pediatric AI models, the number of AI implementations is minimal with no standardized reporting of outcomes, care processes, or human performance measures. More comprehensive evaluations will help elucidate mechanisms of impact.
期刊介绍：
ACI is the third Schattauer journal dealing with biomedical and health informatics. It perfectly complements our other journals Öffnet internen Link im aktuellen FensterMethods of Information in Medicine and the Öffnet internen Link im aktuellen FensterYearbook of Medical Informatics. The Yearbook of Medical Informatics being the “Milestone” or state-of-the-art journal and Methods of Information in Medicine being the “Science and Research” journal of IMIA, ACI intends to be the “Practical” journal of IMIA.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
