ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Development, internal and external evaluation of an artificial intelligence algorithm for child growth monitoring in primary care.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. 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.
- Development, internal and external evaluation of an artificial intelligence algorithm for child growth monitoring in primary care.PLOS digital health · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our goal was to improve growth monitoring in children by developing and evaluating an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm that can detect abnormal growth. We used pre-diagnosis height measurements for children with a diagnosis of growth hormone deficiency (GHD, n = 86) or Turner syndrome (TS, n = 87) in France (1990-2014) and all height measurements of apparently healthy children (referents, n = 923). We modeled the individual height growth curves by applying non-linear mixed models for each new measurement of each child. The resulting growth parameters were used in multinomial logistic regression across five pre-defined age ranges from 1 to 12 years to predict abnormal growth trajectories. For the five age-specific predictive models, we studied the discrimination and calibration curves, and retained the risk thresholds that offered a pre-defined specificity of 98%. Using all the available height measurements for cases and referents, we evaluated the cumulative diagnostic performance of the algorithm for detecting GHD or TS and the theoretical reduction in time to diagnosis. We evaluated these models internally using 5-fold cross-validation and externally from a regional sample of children with GHD (n = 77) or TS (n = 40) and a national sample of apparently healthy children (n = 5,755). The five age-specific predictive models had good discrimination (high AUROC range 0.87-0.99) and good calibration. Internal evaluations showed stable results. External evaluation revealed a cumulative sensitivity and specificity of 84.6% (95% CI 76.8-90.6) and 94.3% (93.6-94.9). The median theoretical reduction in time to diagnosis was 2.0 years (interquartile range 0.6-3.8): 1.6 years (0.5-2.8) for GHD and 3.0 years (1.0-5.4) for TS. To conclude, we developed and internally and externally evaluated an AI algorithm with high diagnostic performance for the early detection of GHD and TS. A refinement of the algorithm to include other target conditions and further external evaluation in other countries is needed before implementation in daily practice.
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.