ReviewBrain & spine2025
The diagnostic and prognostic capability of artificial intelligence in spinal cord injury: A systematic review.
Review in Brain & spine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Systematic Review of Artificial Intelligence Applications in Clinical Trials for Central Nervous System Injuries.Current neuropharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- The application of artificial intelligence in the acute and sub-acute phases of spinal cord injury- a systematic review.Spinal cord · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tear Diagnosis: A Bibliometric Analysis of the 50 Most Cited Studies.The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2026Review
- Severity Prediction of Traumatic Cervical Spinal Cord Injury With an AI Model Based on MRI Radiomics.JOR spine · 2026Article
- A scoping review on the essential role of global neurotrauma in achieving the sustainable development goals.Discover public health · 2026Review
- Determination of Diagnosis and Prognosis in Spinal Cord Injury Using Machine Learning.Korean journal of neurotrauma · 2025Review
- A narrative review of AI monitoring in postoperative pain management and functional rehabilitation for spinal cord injury.Frontiers in neurologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) models have shown potential for diagnosing and prognosticating traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI), but their clinical utility remains uncertain. Method: ology: The primary aim was to evaluate the performance of AI algorithms in diagnosing and prognosticating tSCI. Subsequent systematic searching of seven databases identified studies evaluating AI models. PROBAST and TRIPOD tools were used to assess the quality and reporting of included studies (PROSPERO: CRD42023464722). Fourteen studies, comprising 20 models and 280,817 pooled imaging datasets, were included. Analysis was conducted in line with the SWiM guidelines. Results: For prognostication, 11 studies predicted outcomes including AIS improvement (30%), mortality and ambulatory ability (20% each), and discharge or length of stay (10%). The mean AUC was 0.770 (range: 0.682-0.902), indicating moderate predictive performance. Diagnostic models utilising DTI, CT, and T2-weighted MRI with CNN-based segmentation achieved a weighted mean accuracy of 0.898 (range: 0.813-0.938), outperforming prognostic models. Conclusion: AI demonstrates strong diagnostic accuracy (mean accuracy: 0.898) and moderate prognostic capability (mean AUC: 0.770) for tSCI. However, the lack of standardised frameworks and external validation limits clinical applicability. Future models should integrate multimodal data, including imaging, patient characteristics, and clinician judgment, to improve utility and alignment with clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.