Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38624409›Full record

ReviewCurrent treatment options in pediatrics2020

From Clinic to Computer and Back Again: Practical Considerations When Designing and Implementing Machine Learning Solutions for Pediatrics.

Sujay Nagaraj, Vinyas Harish, Liam G McCoy, Felipe Morgado, Ian Stedman, Stephen Lu, Erik Drysdale, Michael Brudno, Devin Singh

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current treatment options in pediatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Implementation frameworks for end-to-end clinical AI: derivation of the SALIENT framework.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023
    Review
  4. Regulating the Safety of Health-Related Artificial Intelligence.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
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

9 authors.

Sujay NagarajFaculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8231-7305
Vinyas HarishFaculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario Canada.
Liam G McCoyFaculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario Canada.
Felipe MorgadoFaculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario Canada.
Ian StedmanSchool of Public Policy and Administration, York University, Toronto, Ontario Canada.
Stephen LuPaediatric Emergency Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario Canada.
Erik DrysdalePaediatric Emergency Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario Canada.
Michael BrudnoDepartment of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario Canada.
Devin SinghDepartment of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose of review: Machine learning (ML), a branch of artificial intelligence, is influencing all fields in medicine, with an abundance of work describing its application to adult practice. ML in pediatrics is distinctly unique with clinical, technical, and ethical nuances limiting the direct translation of ML tools developed for adults to pediatric populations. To our knowledge, no work has yet focused on outlining the unique considerations that need to be taken into account when designing and implementing ML in pediatrics. Recent findings: The nature of varying developmental stages and the prominence of family-centered care lead to vastly different data-generating processes in pediatrics. Data heterogeneity and a lack of high-quality pediatric databases further complicate ML research. In order to address some of these nuances, we provide a common pipeline for clinicians and computer scientists to use as a foundation for structuring ML projects, and a framework for the translation of a developed model into clinical practice in pediatrics. Throughout these pathways, we also highlight ethical and legal considerations that must be taken into account when working with pediatric populations and data. Summary: Here, we describe a comprehensive outline of special considerations required of ML in pediatrics from project ideation to implementation. We hope this review can serve as a high-level guideline for ML scientists and clinicians alike to identify applications in the pediatric setting, generate effective ML solutions, and subsequently deliver them to patients, families, and providers.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceDesignEthicsMachine learningPediatric medicineTranslation

Identifiers

PMID38624409
PMCPMC7490206

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.