ReviewChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Artificial Intelligence and Child Abuse and Neglect: A Systematic Review.
Review in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Conversational AI for Child Abuse Detection Through Multistage Counseling: Model Development and Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Leveraging AI to Investigate Child Maltreatment Text Narratives: Promising Benefits and Addressable Risks.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2025Article
- Genetics, Epigenetics, and the Environment: Are Precision Medicine, Provider Compassion, and Social Justice Effective Public Health Measures to Mitigate Disease Risk and Severity?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Review
- Fostering Tomorrow: Uniting Artificial Intelligence and Social Pediatrics for Comprehensive Child Well-being.Turkish archives of pediatrics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
All societies should carefully address the child abuse and neglect phenomenon due to its acute and chronic sequelae. Even if artificial intelligence (AI) implementation in this field could be helpful, the state of the art of this implementation is not known. No studies have comprehensively reviewed the types of AI models that have been developed/validated. Furthermore, no indications about the risk of bias in these studies are available. For these reasons, the authors conducted a systematic review of the PubMed database to answer the following questions: "what is the state of the art about the development and/or validation of AI predictive models useful to contrast child abuse and neglect phenomenon?"; "which is the risk of bias of the included articles?". The inclusion criteria were: articles written in English and dated from January 1985 to 31 March 2023; publications that used a medical and/or protective service dataset to develop and/or validate AI prediction models. The reviewers screened 413 articles. Among them, seven papers were included. Their analysis showed that: the types of input data were heterogeneous; artificial neural networks, convolutional neural networks, and natural language processing were used; the datasets had a median size of 2600 cases; the risk of bias was high for all studies. The results of the review pointed out that the implementation of AI in the child abuse and neglect field lagged compared to other medical fields. Furthermore, the evaluation of the risk of bias suggested that future studies should provide an appropriate choice of sample size, validation, and management of overfitting, optimism, and missing data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.