ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Perceptions and knowledge of machine learning for paediatric related decision support in emergency care - A UK and Ireland network survey study of clinician leaders.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
This study explores clinician leaders understanding and perception at site level towards machine learning (ML) decision support tools for paediatric related emergency care across the UK and Ireland, essential in guiding safe and effective frontline implementation. A cross-sectional online survey was distributed via Paediatric Emergency Research United Kingdom and Ireland (PERUKI) to the lead for digital systems or PERUKI site lead, with one response sought per site. Survey development was in REDCap, and descriptive analysis (counts, percentages) was primarily performed. The response rate was 86.7% (65/75), mostly from England (83.1%). While 80.0% understood 'Artificial Intelligence', fewer understood advanced concepts such as 'Deep Learning' (32.3%). Most clinicians believed ML will support decision making (83.1%), would be willing to use (87.7%), and the future of decision making is a combination of human and ML (83.1%). Barriers included concerns about bias (61.5%), ML accuracy (56.9%), and inadequate information technology infrastructure (67.7%). Digital leads were more concerned about ML accuracy than non-digital (68.2% vs. 51.2%). Among potential applications, antimicrobial stewardship ranked highest (90.8%), and diagnosis of mental health conditions lowest (24.6%). Strong interest in ML tools for decision support in paediatric emergency care was evident, though concerns about bias, accuracy, and infrastructure must be addressed. Ongoing co-design with clinicians is critical in ensuring these tools are trusted, useful and suited to paediatric emergency care. Targeted education, digital leadership, and strategic investment in infrastructure and governance are essential for the successful adoption and integration of ML in clinical workflows.
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.