SynthesisEuropean journal of pediatrics2026
Leveraging artificial intelligence to predict non-adherence to pediatric immunization schedules: a systematic review.
Synthesis in European journal of pediatrics, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Immunization is one of the most effective interventions to prevent infectious diseases. Identifying individuals at risk of non-adherence to immunization schedules could enable early interventions to improve coverage. With the increasing availability of large datasets with sociodemographic, medical, and geographic data, artificial intelligence (AI) offers new possibilities for identifying predictive patterns. We performed a systematic literature review of original studies that used AI to predict immunization non-adherence in children. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science and no restrictions were applied regarding publication year, language, or study design. Study characteristics, dataset size, AI methods, performance metrics, and validation approaches were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST + AI. A total of 843 records were identified; after screening, 12 studies were included. Nine of 12 studies were conducted in low- and middle-income countries, used cross-sectional survey data, and analyzed vaccines from routine immunization schedules. Model performance was generally high; 9/12 studies reported an accuracy or an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve exceeding 80%, but no study conducted external validation. Predictors clustered into seven categories: maternal, paternal, family, child, geographic, wealth, and others. Among maternal and child-related factors, prenatal care and previous immunization history had a high predictive weight.
conclusionAI demonstrates a promising potential for identifying individuals at risk of vaccine non-adherence. However, the lack of external validation raises concerns about model overfitting and limits real-world applicability. Demographic health surveys were routinely repeated across countries and time periods and could therefore represent an ideal resource for external validation. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Geographic, sociodemographic, and medical factors contribute to non-adherence to the immunization schedule. • Identifying these individuals can guide early interventions to improve immunization coverage. WHAT IS NEW: • Artificial intelligence can reveal unknown influential factors; prenatal care and delivery setting emerged as key factors in this systematic review.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42141249What 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.