ReviewFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026
AI-driven diagnosis of pneumococcal infections in children-a call for primary-care focused and a coherent evidence base.
Review in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Despite widespread pneumococcal vaccination programmes, the disease remains a leading cause of paediatric morbidity and mortality globally. Persistent barriers, including limited vaccine access and coverage, cold-chain constraints, and delayed or inaccurate diagnosis, disproportionately affect rural communities, primary healthcare settings, and populations with low socioeconomic status. These same settings typically lack the radiological expertise required for timely diagnosis. Problem: Traditionally, diagnosis is done through chest X-ray interpretation by trained paediatricians or radiologists, who are rarely available in remote or resource-limited facilities. Artificial intelligence (AI)-aided diagnostic tools offer a potential pathway to address these gaps, enabling timely and accurate diagnosis, improved access, appropriate treatment, reduced human suffering, and potential cost-savings for healthcare providers and families. Evidence gap: To date, very few studies have evaluated AI-driven diagnostic tools specifically for pneumococcal infections focusing on children. Additionally, existing research is characterised by multiple shortcomings such as limited population diversity, small sample sizes, lack of external validation, absence of standardised reporting, and a hospital-centric focus that overlooks primary and community care and low-resource settings. Proposed approach: Given the many unanswered questions, we propose a transparent comprehensive systematic scoping review to identify and synthesise relevant existing and emerging body of literature in this field with a focus on children. The review will map the extent, range, and nature of available evidence, identify critical gaps, and assess the scope of validation and implementation research to date. It will also provide a framework for the economic analysis. Conclusion: Future research must move beyond isolated proof-of-concept studies toward a coherent, transparent, collaborative, and evidence-driven agenda. This agenda should include rigorous economic evaluations to fully understand resource implications for healthcare providers, health systems, and societies, particularly in low-resource settings where the potential impact of AI-driven diagnostics could be greatest.
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.