Pediatric chest radiograph interpretation: how far has artificial intelligence come? A systematic literature review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most artificial intelligence (AI) studies have focused primarily on adult imaging, with less attention to the unique aspects of pediatric imaging. The objectives of this study were to (1) identify all publicly available pediatric datasets and determine their potential utility and limitations for pediatric AI studies and (2) systematically review the literature to assess the current state of AI in pediatric chest radiograph interpretation. We searched PubMed, Web of Science and Embase to retrieve all studies from 1990 to 2021 that assessed AI for pediatric chest radiograph interpretation and abstracted the datasets used to train and test AI algorithms, approaches and performance metrics. Of 29 publicly available chest radiograph datasets, 2 datasets included solely pediatric chest radiographs, and 7 datasets included pediatric and adult patients. We identified 55 articles that implemented an AI model to interpret pediatric chest radiographs or pediatric and adult chest radiographs. Classification of chest radiographs as pneumonia was the most common application of AI, evaluated in 65% of the studies. Although many studies report high diagnostic accuracy, most algorithms were not validated on external datasets. Most AI studies for pediatric chest radiograph interpretation have focused on a limited number of diseases, and progress is hindered by a lack of large-scale pediatric chest radiograph datasets.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it