ArticleTherapeutic advances in urology
Awareness, use, and perceived barriers to artificial intelligence in pediatric urology: a multicenter survey.
Article in Therapeutic advances in urology. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into healthcare, yet their adoption in pediatric urology remains insufficiently explored. Pediatric urology, with its complex and rare conditions, may particularly benefit from AI-based innovations. Objectives: This study aimed to assess pediatric urologists' awareness, usage patterns, and perceptions regarding AI and LLMs, while also identifying potential applications, barriers, and educational needs. Design: A cross-sectional, descriptive survey was conducted among pediatric urologists. Methods: Between May and July 2025, a 21-item questionnaire was distributed via professional networks and mailing lists. Items addressed demographics, knowledge of AI, frequency and purpose of AI and LLM use, perceived clinical and surgical applications, ethical concerns, and interest in AI training. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis. Results: Of 368 invited pediatric urologists, 103 (28%) responded. Most reported moderate (35.0%) or low (29.1%) knowledge of AI, yet more than half (51.5%) used AI tools daily. LLMs had been used by 96.1% of participants, mainly for scientific writing (78.8%), language editing (54.5%), and text summarization (46.5%). Surgical simulation (46.6%), imaging-based strategy planning (40.8%), and preoperative planning (36.9%) were identified as promising clinical applications. Barriers included lack of trust (52.4%), ethical concerns (43.7%), and insufficient knowledge (35.0%). A strong interest in structured AI training was expressed by 81% of participants. Although responses were obtained from multiple countries, the majority of participants were based in Turkey, and the findings should be interpreted accordingly. Conclusion: Pediatric urologists demonstrate substantial engagement with AI in academic work, while clinical integration is still limited. The findings highlight a strong demand for AI education and emphasize the need for regulatory clarity, ethical frameworks, and validated tools to enable safe and effective use of AI in pediatric urology.
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.