Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37673925›Full record

ReviewNPJ digital medicine2023

Recommendations for the use of pediatric data in artificial intelligence and machine learning ACCEPT-AI.

V Muralidharan, A Burgart, R Daneshjou, S Rose

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in NPJ digital medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

60 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Pediatrics 4.0: the Transformative Impacts of the Latest Industrial Revolution on Pediatrics.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Explainable AI: Ethical Frameworks, Bias, and the Necessity for Benchmarks.European journal of pediatric surgery : official journal of Austrian Association of Pediatric Surgery ... [et al] = Zeitschrift fur Kinderchirurgie · 2026
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors.

V MuralidharanDepartment of Dermatology, Stanford University, Stanford, USA. vmurali5@stanford.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0226-8468
A BurgartDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative, and Pain Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2917-7806
R Daneshjou *Department of Dermatology, Stanford University, Stanford, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7988-9356
S Rose *Department of Health Policy, Stanford University, Stanford, USA.

Funding

A Framework for the Social Impact of Algorithms in Health CareDP1LM014278 · NLM · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI Sherri Rose · 2022 to 2026
$5.4M
NLM NIH HHS DP1 LM014278
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

ACCEPT-AI is a framework of recommendations for the safe inclusion of pediatric data in artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) research. It has been built on fundamental ethical principles of pediatric and AI research and incorporates age, consent, assent, communication, equity, protection of data, and technological considerations. ACCEPT-AI has been designed to guide researchers, clinicians, regulators, and policymakers and can be utilized as an independent tool, or adjunctively to existing AI/ML guidelines.

Identifiers

PMID37673925
PMCPMC10482936

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 OpenQuestion graph.