Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41393607›Full record

ReviewCureus2025

Artificial Intelligence in Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review of Prognostic, Diagnostic, and Monitoring Applications.

Anas E Ahmed, Rayan M Alyami, Fatimah H Al Ghazwi, Renad H Hamzi, Nawa K Alshammari, Fawziah M Jali, Abdullah A Al Alduwayh, Thikra M Almujami, Abdullah S Alamri, Jamal A Sabban and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

11 authors.

Anas E AhmedCommunity Medicine, Jazan University, Jazan, SAU.
Rayan M AlyamiGeneral Practice, College of Medicine, University of Bisha, Bisha, SAU.
Fatimah H Al GhazwiGeneral Practice, College of Medicine, Jazan University, Jazan, SAU.
Renad H HamziGeneral Practice, College of Medicine, Jazan University, Jazan, SAU.
Nawa K AlshammariGeneral Practice, College of Medicine, Hail University, Hail, SAU.
Fawziah M JaliGeneral Practice, College of Medicine, Jazan University, Jazan, SAU.
Abdullah A Al AlduwayhGeneral Practice, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, SAU.
Thikra M AlmujamiGeneral Practice, College of Medicine, Jazan University, Jazan, SAU.
Abdullah S AlamriGeneral Practice, Faculty of Medicine, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, SAU.
Jamal A SabbanGeneral Practice, Faculty of Medicine, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, SAU.
Ghadi F AlsumGeneral Practice, College of Medicine, Jazan University, Jazan, SAU.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains a leading cause of death and disability worldwide, with outcomes that are highly heterogeneous and difficult to predict using conventional clinical tools. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a promising approach to enhance diagnosis, prognostication, and management of TBI across diverse care settings. Following PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL was conducted from inception to September 2025. Eligible studies applied AI or machine learning techniques to TBI populations for diagnosis, outcome prediction, monitoring, or screening, with data extracted on study design, population characteristics, data sources, model architecture, comparators, and performance metrics. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using the PROBAST tool. From 10,710 records identified, 12 studies met the inclusion criteria. Prognostic models across emergency triage, intensive care unit, and registry datasets achieved AUCs (area under the curve) between 0.81 and 0.93, with simple logistic regression models often performing comparably to more complex machine learning methods. Imaging-based approaches, including convolutional neural networks for CT segmentation, improved prediction of therapeutic intensity but were constrained by small sample sizes and inconsistent segmentation quality. Unsupervised clustering revealed clinically meaningful phenotypes, though generalizability was variable. Pediatric applications were exploratory, with small cohorts prone to overfitting. Screening models for mild TBI demonstrated overall accuracies of 0.80-0.86 but only modest sensitivity (~0.70) for CT-positive cases. Across domains, interpretability strategies such as SHAP values and fuzzy rules showed promise; however, many studies were limited by inadequate external validation, incomplete handling of missing data, and small or retrospective single-center designs. Overall, AI applications in TBI demonstrate strong potential for improving prognostication, imaging analysis, and patient stratification, yet their clinical translation remains constrained by methodological shortcomings. Parsimonious models leveraging readily available clinical variables frequently rival more complex approaches, underscoring the importance of task-specific model selection. Future research should prioritize multicenter prospective datasets, external validation, calibration assessment, and evaluation of clinical impact to enable reliable integration of AI into TBI care.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencediagnosismachine learningpredictionprognosistraumatic brain injury

Identifiers

PMID41393607
PMCPMC12698136

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.