Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41673142›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2026

Performance of adult-trained artificial intelligence models in paediatric imaging-a scoping review.

Lene Bjerke Laborie, Jennifer Lee, Edward Antram, Regina Küfner Lein, Susan Cheng Shelmerdine

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Reply to Srikanth M.Pediatric radiology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Lene Bjerke LaborieMohn Medical Imaging and Visualization Centre, Department of Radiology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway. lene.bjerke.laborie@helse-bergen.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9084-3639
Jennifer LeeDepartment of Clinical Radiology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, UK.
Edward AntramDepartment of Radiology, St George's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Regina Küfner LeinMedical Library, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Susan Cheng ShelmerdineDepartment of Clinical Radiology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis scoping review aims to evaluate the performance of artificial intelligence (AI) models designed for adults when applied to paediatric imaging datasets without additional adaptations, and to quantify performance degradation across different modalities, use-cases and age groups. MATERIALS AND

methodsA literature search was conducted covering 10 years (1/01/2014-23/06/2025) using terms relating to "child", "adult", "artificial intelligence", "radiology" and "validation/performance". Two reviewers independently extracted data using standardised templates and conducted a narrative analysis.

resultsOf 5642 abstracts, 20 studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies evaluated AI tools across 16 paediatric dataset cohorts ranging from 30 to 7357 subjects. Three datasets were used more than once to evaluate different AI model performance metrics. The tools were applied to radiography (n = 7), CT (n = 7), MRI (n = 2), Dual-energy-x-ray-absorptiometry (DEXA) (n = 2) and ultrasound (n = 2) across different AI tasks: segmentation (n = 9), classification (n = 4), detection (n = 3), and mixed tasks (n = 4). Apart from two studies, all articles reported performance reduction when adult-trained AI tools were applied to paediatric populations. Cohort overlap represents the risk of duplication bias. Detection tasks showed the most severe deterioration, with sensitivity dropping from 68-100% in adults to 26-68% in children for pulmonary nodule detection. For segmentation tasks, Dice score reductions > 0.10 were noted across organs and imaging modalities. Children ≤ 2 years consistently showed the greatest performance deficits across all task types.

conclusionAI tools intended for adult use do not perform to the same standard when used in a paediatric population without additional adaptation, particularly for children under 2 years. Careful model evaluation is required before clinical implementation. KEY POINTS: Question How do artificial intelligence-based radiology tools designed for adults perform when applied to paediatric imaging without additional adaptation? Findings Adult-trained AI models consistently demonstrated reduced performance in children, particularly in those under 2 years, with detection tasks showing the most severe deterioration. Clinical relevance Healthcare professionals should not assume that adult-trained radiology AI tools intended for adult use can be directly applied to the paediatric population without validation, additional training or fine-tuning, particularly for the youngest age groups.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDiagnostic ImagingPediatricsAdultChildHumansArtificial intelligenceDeep learningScoping reviewTransfer machine learningValidation

Identifiers

PMID41673142
PMCPMC13282355

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.