Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41487886›Full record

ArticleCureus2025

Rethinking Pediatric Human-AI Interaction for Building Safer Digital Health Ecosystems.

Hana Abbasian, Imeth Illamperuma

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Hana AbbasianMedical Education and Simulation, Center for Bioethics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.
Imeth IllamperumaMedicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, CAN.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems used in everyday digital spaces often rely on design assumptions shaped by adult patterns of reasoning, which creates specific interpretive gaps for younger users. This editorial examines how narrative-style outputs produced through epistemic automation can make probabilistic estimates appear more authoritative than intended for some adolescents. It also considers how technical opacity and model drift introduce shifts in system behavior that minors may misread as stable clinical logic, since there are few cues that distinguish computational changes from expert reasoning. When adolescents independently consult conversational agents or symptom-oriented tools, these interactions can influence clinical encounters without being systematically discussed. Therefore, this editorial outlines practical ways for clinicians to ask about AI-mediated information seeking and describes developmental design features, such as explicit uncertainty cues, layered explanations, and age-responsive prompting, that can reduce misinterpretation. Treating the pediatric digital ecosystem as a distinct design and regulatory setting allows for more precise alignment between algorithmic behavior, developmental cognition, and clinical practice.

Indexed as

artificial intelligence (ai)digital health technologieshealth policy and advocacymachine learning toolspediatric ethics

Identifiers

PMID41487886
PMCPMC12758078

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.