ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Performance of adult-trained artificial intelligence models in paediatric imaging-a scoping review.
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Letter to the Editor: Commercial versus open-source artificial intelligence in paediatric imaging-closing the stratified analysis gap in a scoping review.European radiology · 2026Article
- Integrating artificial intelligence into paediatric interventional radiology: a review of emerging applications and future directions.Pediatric radiology · 2026Review
- Perspectives on the future of artificial intelligence in paediatric radiology.Pediatric radiology · 2026Article
- Automated detection of periapical lesions in pediatric panoramic radiographs using YOLOv7: a retrospective internal validation study.BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
- Reply to Srikanth M.Pediatric radiology · 2026Article
- Current State and Future Directions of Diagnostic Imaging and Interpretation in Pediatric Radiology.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.