Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40027293›Full record

ReviewBrain & spine2025

The diagnostic and prognostic capability of artificial intelligence in spinal cord injury: A systematic review.

Saran Singh Gill, Hariharan Subbiah Ponniah, Sho Giersztein, Rishi Miriyala Anantharaj, Srikar Reddy Namireddy, Joshua Killilea, DanieleS C Ramsay, Ahmed Salih, Ahkash Thavarajasingam, Daniel Scurtu and 4 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Saran Singh GillImperial Brain & Spine Initiative, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Hariharan Subbiah PonniahImperial Brain & Spine Initiative, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Sho GierszteinImperial Brain & Spine Initiative, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Rishi Miriyala AnantharajImperial Brain & Spine Initiative, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Srikar Reddy NamireddyImperial Brain & Spine Initiative, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Joshua KillileaImperial Brain & Spine Initiative, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
DanieleS C RamsayImperial Brain & Spine Initiative, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Ahmed SalihImperial Brain & Spine Initiative, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Ahkash ThavarajasingamImperial Brain & Spine Initiative, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Daniel ScurtuDepartment of Neurosurgery, Universitätsmedizin Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Dragan JankovicDepartment of Neurosurgery, LMU University Hospital, LMU, Munich, Germany.
Salvatore RussoImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Andreas KramerDepartment of Neurosurgery, LMU University Hospital, LMU, Munich, Germany.
Santhosh G ThavarajasingamImperial Brain & Spine Initiative, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AIDiagnosisPrognosisSpinal cord injurySpinetSCI

Identifiers

PMID40027293
PMCPMC11871462

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.