Use of machine learning in pediatric surgical clinical prediction tools: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Clinical prediction tools (CPTs) are decision-making instruments utilizing patient data to predict specific clinical outcomes, risk-stratify patients, or suggest personalized diagnostic or therapeutic options. Recent advancements in artificial intelligence have resulted in a proliferation of CPTs created using machine learning (ML)-yet the clinical applicability of ML-based CPTs and their validation in clinical settings remain unclear. This systematic review aims to compare the validity and clinical efficacy of ML-based to traditional CPTs in pediatric surgery. METHODS: Nine databases were searched from 2000 until July 9, 2021 to retrieve articles reporting on CPTs and ML for pediatric surgical conditions. PRISMA standards were followed, and screening was performed by two independent reviewers in Rayyan, with a third reviewer resolving conflicts. Risk of bias was assessed using the PROBAST. RESULTS: Out of 8300 studies, 48 met the inclusion criteria. The most represented surgical specialties were pediatric general (14), neurosurgery (13) and cardiac surgery (12). Prognostic (26) CPTs were the most represented type of surgical pediatric CPTs followed by diagnostic (10), interventional (9), and risk stratifying (2). One study included a CPT for diagnostic, interventional and prognostic purposes. 81% of studies compared their CPT to ML-based CPTs, statistical CPTs, or the unaided clinician, but lacked external validation and/or evidence of clinical implementation. CONCLUSIONS: While most studies claim significant potential improvements by incorporating ML-based CPTs in pediatric surgical decision-making, both external validation and clinical application remains limited. Further studies must focus on validating existing instruments or developing validated tools, and incorporating them in the clinical workflow. TYPE OF STUDY: Systematic Review LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".