ReviewSage open pediatrics
Artificial Intelligence-Driven Triage in Pediatric Emergency Departments: Accuracy, Bias, and Impact on Clinical Outcomes: A Narrative Review.
Review in Sage open pediatrics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Building Clinical Artificial Intelligence at the PICU Bedside: Recognizing the Clinician-Builder.Critical care explorations · 2026Article
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
AI-driven triage presents a transformative opportunity to address persistent challenges in pediatric emergency care, from overcrowding and waiting times to human error and outcome disparities. This narrative review demonstrates that AI systems can achieve high accuracy in predicting critical outcomes, with pooled AUROCs of 0.87 for hospital admission, 0.93 for ICU admission, and 0.93 for mortality, significantly outperforming traditional triage scales, while observational studies report associations with improved efficiency, reduced triage errors, and enhanced resource allocation. However, publication bias favoring positive results affects the available evidence, and studies reporting no benefit or performance degradation exist. The promise of AI is tempered by significant challenges: performance varies across pediatric subgroups, the risks of perpetuating and amplifying bias remain inadequately addressed, and workflow integration and medico-legal liability require careful navigation. AI augments clinical judgment, guided by robust governance frameworks, fairness auditing, and human oversight for more equitable emergency care.
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.