ReviewCureus2026
Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Pediatric Anesthesia: A Structured Narrative Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are emerging as valuable tools in pediatric anesthesia practice. This narrative review examines applications across airway management, intraoperative monitoring, and postoperative care. Following a systematic literature search of four databases through 2024, 11 studies were analyzed examining AI methodologies in pediatric anesthesia settings. The review found that ML models consistently demonstrated improved predictive performance within studied datasets compared with traditional clinical approaches, particularly in endotracheal tube sizing and placement, hypoxemia prediction, and pain assessment. Models achieved high predictive accuracy rates and discrimination metrics across diverse clinical applications, with some demonstrating placement error reductions of 40-50% in retrospective analyses and achieving prediction accuracy exceeding 90%. Despite promising results, most studies were retrospective single-center analyses, highlighting the need for prospective multi-center validation and implementation research. Key challenges include ensuring model generalizability across diverse populations, integrating AI into clinical workflows, addressing regulatory requirements, and maintaining transparency in decision-making processes. Future work should focus on external validation, improving model interpretability, and developing frameworks for responsible integration into pediatric anesthesia practice to maximize patient safety benefits while addressing ethical considerations.
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.