SynthesisWorld journal of pediatrics : WJP2026
Artificial intelligence in pediatric intensive care units: current applications in sepsis management.
Synthesis in World journal of pediatrics : WJP, 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
backgroundEarly detection of sepsis in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) is critical, but challenging due to its nonspecific clinical presentation and marked physiological heterogeneity. Artificial intelligence (AI) offers transformative potential for precision sepsis management, but clinical translation remains complex due to methodological and implementation barriers. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review was conducted on the application of AI in sepsis management in PICUs. We included original research studies, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, clinical guidelines, and consensus statements. Databases searched included PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wan Fang, covering records from inception to March 2026. Search terms included "artificial intelligence", "machine learning", "deep learning", "pediatric sepsis", "neonatal sepsis", "pediatric intensive care unit", and "Clinical Decision Support Systems".
resultsAI models consistently outperformed traditional pediatric scoring systems in both early prediction and risk stratification. Our comparative analysis indicates that while random forest models are more robust for discrete, cross-sectional data, long short-term memory networks excel at capturing the dynamic temporal patterns inherent in pediatric physiology. AI-driven clinical decision support systems were found to significantly improve adherence to standardized sepsis bundles; however, false-positive rates varied across healthcare tiers, exposing critical disparities in electronic health record infrastructure. Furthermore, multi-omics integration identified distinct biological endotypes, offering a path towards personalized therapy. Economic evaluations suggest these tools can reduce per-patient costs and optimize PICU resource allocation. Of note, recent global health policies now emphasize pediatric-specific validation and algorithmic fairness as prerequisites for equitable deployment of AI.
conclusionsDespite its technical superiority in the management of pediatric sepsis, the clinical utility of AI hinges on enhancing the transparency of "black-box" algorithms through explainable AI and narrowing the systemic infrastructure divide across healthcare tiers. Establishing robust quality controls and policy frameworks is paramount to evolving AI from a research-bound tool into a reliable diagnostic adjunct within standard pediatric care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42265523What 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.