Use of artificial intelligence in paediatric anaesthesia: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Although the development of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in medicine has been significant, their application to paediatric anaesthesia is not well characterised. As the paediatric operating room is a data-rich environment that requires critical clinical decision-making, this systematic review aims to characterise the current use of AI in paediatric anaesthesia and to identify barriers to the successful integration of such technologies. Methods: This review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022304610), the international registry for systematic reviews. The search strategy was prepared by a librarian and run in five electronic databases (Embase, Medline, Central, Scopus, and Web of Science). Collected articles were screened by two reviewers. Included studies described the use of AI for paediatric anaesthesia (<18 yr old) within the perioperative setting. Results: From 3313 records identified in the initial search, 40 were included in this review. Identified applications of AI were described for patient risk factor prediction (24 studies; 60%), anaesthetic depth estimation (2; 5%), anaesthetic medication/technique decision guidance (2; 5%), intubation assistance (1; 2.5%), airway device selection (3; 7.5%), physiological variable monitoring (6; 15%), and operating room scheduling (2; 5%). Multiple domains of AI were discussed including machine learning, computer vision, fuzzy logic, and natural language processing. Conclusion: There is an emerging literature regarding applications of AI for paediatric anaesthesia, and their clinical integration holds potential for ultimately improving patient outcomes. However, multiple barriers to their clinical integration remain including a lack of high-quality input data, lack of external validation/evaluation, and unclear generalisability to diverse settings. Systematic review protocol: CRD42022304610 (PROSPERO).
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 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".