ReviewCureus2025
The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Pediatric Intensive Care: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- Machine Learning-Based Prediction of 48-Hour Extubation Success in Mechanically Ventilated Children: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Emerging Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Pediatric Care.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Intensive Care: An Overview of Systematic Reviews with Clinical Maturity and Readiness Mapping.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Point of Care Testing, Rapid Next Generation Sequencing and Artificial Intelligence in Pediatric and Neonatal Healthcare: A Narrative Review.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) could transform due to artificial intelligence (AI), which could improve patient outcomes, increase diagnostic accuracy, and streamline repetitive procedures. The goal of this systematic review was to outline how AI can be used to enhance any health outcomes in pediatric intensive care. We searched four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore) for relevant studies using a predefined systematic search. We found 267 studies in these four databases. The studies were first screened to remove the duplicates and then screened by titles to remove irrelevant studies. The studies were further screened based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, in which 32 studies were found suitable for inclusion in this study. The studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Prediction Model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) tool. After AI was implemented, almost 22% (n = 7) of studies showed an immediate effect and enhanced health outcomes. A small number of studies involved AI implementation in actual PICUs, while the majority focused on experimental testing. AI models outperformed conventional clinical modalities among the remaining 78% (n = 25) and might have indirectly impacted patient outcomes. Significant variation in metrics and standardization was found when health outcomes were quantitatively assessed using statistical measures, including specificity (38%; n = 12) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) (56%; n = 18). There are not sufficient studies showing that AI has significantly enhanced pediatric critical care patients' health outcomes. To evaluate AI's impact, more prospective, experimental research is required, utilizing verified outcome measures, defined metrics, and established application frameworks.
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.