Artificial Intelligence in the Future Landscape of Pediatric Neuroradiology: Opportunities and Challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper will review how artificial intelligence (AI) will play an increasingly important role in pediatric neuroradiology in the future. A safe, transparent, and human-centric AI is needed to tackle the quadruple aim of improved health outcomes, enhanced patient and family experience, reduced costs, and improved well-being of the healthcare team in pediatric neuroradiology. Equity, diversity and inclusion, data safety, and access to care will need to always be considered. In the next decade, AI algorithms are expected to play an increasingly important role in access to care, workflow management, abnormality detection, classification, response prediction, prognostication, report generation, as well as in the patient and family experience in pediatric neuroradiology. Also, AI algorithms will likely play a role in recognizing and flagging rare diseases and in pattern recognition to identify previously unknown disorders. While AI algorithms will play an important role, humans will not only need to be in the loop, but in the center of pediatric neuroimaging. AI development and deployment will need to be closely watched and monitored by experts in the field. Patient and data safety need to be at the forefront, and the risks of a dependency on technology will need to be contained. The applications and implications of AI in pediatric neuroradiology will differ from adult neuroradiology.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".