Artificial Intelligence and Pediatrics: Synthetic Knowledge Synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first publication on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in pediatrics dates back to 1984. Since then, research on AI in pediatrics has become much more popular, and the number of publications has largely increased. Consequently, a need for a holistic research landscape enabling researchers and other interested parties to gain insights into the use of AI in pediatrics has arisen. To fill this gap, a novel methodology, synthetic knowledge synthesis (SKS), was applied. Using SKS, we identified the most prolific countries, institutions, source titles, funding agencies, and research themes and the most frequently used AI algorithms and their applications in pediatrics. The corpus was extracted from the Scopus (Elsevier, The Netherlands) bibliographic database and analyzed using VOSViewer, version 1.6.20. Done An exponential growth in the literature was observed in the last decade. The United States, China, and Canada were the most productive countries. Deep learning was the most used machine learning algorithm and classification, and natural language processing was the most popular AI approach. Pneumonia, epilepsy, and asthma were the most targeted pediatric diagnoses, and prediction and clinical decision making were the most frequent applications.
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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".