ArticlePloS one2025
Deep learning for pediatric chest x-ray diagnosis: Repurposing a commercial tool developed for adults.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial Intelligence for Diagnosis, Risk Stratification, and Prognosis of Neuroblastoma - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Current oncology reports · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The number of commercially available artificial intelligence (AI) tools to support radiological workflows is constantly increasing, yet dedicated solutions for children are largely unavailable. Here, we repurposed an AI-tool developed for chest radiograph interpretation in adults (Lunit INSIGHT CXR) and investigated its diagnostic performance in a real-world pediatric clinical dataset. 958 consecutive frontal chest radiographs of children aged 2-14 years were included and analyzed with the commercially available AI-tool. The reference standard was determined in a dedicated reading session by a board-certified radiologist. The original reports validated by specialized pediatric radiologists, were considered as second readings. All discordant findings were reanalyzed in consensus. The diagnostic performance of the AI-tool was validated using standard measures of accuracy. For this, the continuous AI output (ranging from 0-100) was binarized using vendor recommended thresholds recommended for adults and optimized thresholds identified for children. Relevant findings were defined as consolidation, atelectasis, nodule, cardiomegaly, mediastinal widening due to mass, pleural effusion and pneumothorax. 200 radiographs [20.9%] demonstrated at least one relevant pathology. Using the adult threshold, the AI-tool showed a high performance for all relevant findings with an AUC 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92-0.95) and. In stratified analysis by age (2-7 vs. 7-14-years-old) a significantly higher performance (p < 0.001) was found for older children with an AUC of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94-0.98) with a sensitivity and specificity of 87.5% and 82.3% respectively, which further increased using optimized thresholds for children. Repurposing existing AI-tools developed for adult application to pediatric patients could support clinical workflows until dedicated solutions become available.
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.