Attitudes on Artificial Intelligence use in Pediatric Care From Parents of Hospitalized Children.

INTRODUCTION: Artificial intelligence (AI) may benefit pediatric healthcare, but it also raises ethical and pragmatic questions. Parental support is important for the advancement of AI in pediatric medicine. However, there is little literature describing parental attitudes toward AI in pediatric healthcare, and existing studies do not represent parents of hospitalized children well. METHODS: We administered the Attitudes toward Artificial Intelligence in Pediatric Healthcare, a validated survey, to parents of hospitalized children in a single tertiary children's hospital. Surveys were administered by trained study personnel (11/2/2021-5/1/2022). Demographic data were collected. An Attitudes toward Artificial Intelligence in Pediatric Healthcare score, assessing openness toward AI-assisted medicine, was calculated for seven areas of concern. Subgroup analyses were conducted using Mann-Whitney U tests to assess the effect of race, gender, education, insurance, length of stay, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission on AI use. RESULTS: We approached 90 parents and conducted 76 surveys for a response rate of 84%. Overall, parents were open to the use of AI in pediatric medicine. Social justice, convenience, privacy, and shared decision-making were important concerns. Parents of children admitted to an ICU expressed the most significantly different attitudes compared to parents of children not admitted to an ICU. CONCLUSIONS: Parents were overall supportive of AI-assisted healthcare decision-making. In particular, parents of children admitted to ICU have significantly different attitudes, and further study is needed to characterize these differences. Parents value transparency and disclosure pathways should be developed to support this expectation.

A label-free immunoassay based upon localized surface plasmon resonance of gold nanorods.

Robust gold nanorod substrates were fabricated for refractive index sensing based on localized surface plasmon resonance (LSPR). The substrate sensitivity was 170 nm/RIU with a figure of merit of 1.3. To monitor biomolecular interactions, the nanorod surfaces were covered with a self-assembled monolayer and conjugated to antibodies by carbodiimide cross-linking. Interactions with a specific secondary antibody were monitored through shifts in the LSPR spectral extinction peak. The resulting binding rates and equilibrium constant were in good agreement with literature values for an antibody-antigen system. The nanorod LSPR sensors were also shown to be sensitive and specific. These results demonstrate that given a sufficiently stable nanoparticle substrate with a well defined chemical interface, LSPR sensing yields similar results to the surface plasmon resonance technique, yet with much simpler instrumentation.

Interrupted aortic arch repair: aortic arch advancement without a patch minimizes arch reinterventions.

BACKGROUND: Surgical repair of interrupted aortic arch (IAA) remains challenging and is associated with significant mortality and incidence of late arch obstruction, as recently reported by the Congenital Heart Surgeons' Society (CHSS). In particular, the CHSS reported that any technique other than direct anastomosis with patch augmentation is a risk factor for arch reintervention. The experience at Texas Children's Hospital with IAA repair using an aortic arch advancement technique without a patch was examined. METHODS: Between July 1995 and December 2005, 60 patients underwent IAA repair using aortic arch advancement without a patch. Selective cerebral perfusion was used in 25 patients (42%). Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze 20 variables to determine risk factors for death, arch reintervention, and left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) reintervention. RESULTS: Median age was 8 days (range, 2 to 271 days) and weight was 3.0 kg (range, 1.7 to 6.1 kg). IAA types were A in 18 (30%) and B in 42 (70%). Associated anomalies were multiple congenital anomalies in 30 (50%) patients, DiGeorge syndrome in 21 (35%), LVOT obstruction in 26 (43%), a single ventricle in 11 (18%), and truncus arteriosus in 6 (10%). Mean follow-up was 3.0 +/- 2.6 years. Five-year freedom from aortic arch reintervention was 100%. Survival at 30 days, 1 year, and 5 years was 93%, 78%, and 76%, respectively. Since July 2000, two of 32 patients have died for an overall survival of 94%. Risk factors for death are older age, multiple congenital anomalies, DiGeorge syndrome, and bicuspid aortic valve. Selective cerebral perfusion was an independent protective variable for survival. Survival for an IAA patient with a ventricular septal defect and no complicating cardiac anomalies was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic arch advancement without a patch can be applied to IAA patients, with the expectation of a minimal need for arch reintervention. This technique affords an excellent survival, to which selective cerebral perfusion may be a contributing factor.