ReviewFrontiers in pediatrics2026
Artificial intelligence in pediatric arrhythmias: current landscape, unique challenges, and translational perspectives.
Review in Frontiers in 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
Background: The interpretation of pediatric electrocardiograms (ECGs) and management of childhood arrhythmias represent specialized clinical disciplines complicated by age-dependent physiological evolution. While artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed adult cardiology, its application to pediatric electrophysiology remains largely in the research phase. Objective: This review critically appraises the current evidence, methodological rigor, clinical readiness, and translational challenges of AI in pediatric arrhythmia detection, risk stratification, and management. Methods: A synthesis of contemporary literature was conducted, evaluating machine learning (ML), deep learning (DL), large language models (LLMs), wearable sensors, and intensive care monitoring across pediatric cohorts. Main findings: While purpose-built DL models demonstrate strong diagnostic performance for specific electrical phenotypes-such as Wolff-Parkinson-White (WPW) syndrome, long QT syndrome (LQTS), and neonatal bradycardia-the vast majority of published tools remain unvalidated retrospective proofs-of-concept. Current AI algorithms analyze isolated ECG waveforms under curated conditions and cannot replace holistic clinical evaluations incorporating patient history, family screening, genetics, and multi-modality diagnostic testing. Significant barriers persist, including pervasive data scarcity, lack of prospective external validation, limited saliency map reproducibility in Explainable AI (XAI), and uncalibrated false alarms. Furthermore, adult-trained algorithms and general-purpose LLMs yield unacceptable diagnostic error rates when applied to children. Conclusions: AI holds promise for enhancing pediatric arrhythmia care, but clinical integration requires moving beyond isolated performance metrics. Future progress hinges on prospective multicenter validation, privacy-preserving federated learning, multimodal data integration, and explicit definition of AI's role as a clinical decision-support tool within real-world workflows.
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.