The state of artificial intelligence in pediatric urology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Review Context and Objective Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) offer new tools to advance care in pediatric urology. While there has been interest in developing ML models in the field, there has not been a synthesis of the literature. Here, we aim to highlight the important work being done in bringing these advanced tools into pediatric urology and review their objectives, model performance, and usability. Evidence Acquisition We performed a comprehensive, non-systematic search on MEDLINE and EMBASE and combined these with hand-searches of publications which utilize ML to predict outcomes in pediatric urology. Each article was extracted for objectives, AI approach, data sources, model inputs and outputs, model performance, and usability. This information was qualitatively synthesized. Evidence Synthesis A total of 27 unique ML models were found in the literature. Vesicoureteral reflux, hydronephrosis, pyeloplasty, and posterior urethral valves were the primary topics. Most models highlight strong performance within institutional datasets and accurately predicted clinically relevant outcomes. Model validity was often limited without external validation, and usability was hampered by model deployment and interpretability. Discussion Current ML models in pediatric urology are promising and have been applied to many major pediatric urology problems. These models still warrant further validation. However, with thoughtful implementation, they may be able to influence clinical practice in the near future.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".