ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Computer vision applications in vascular surgery: a systematic review and critical appraisal.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Computer vision is a rapidly growing field with tools emerging to support clinical practice. This systematic review and critical appraisal synthesizes the applications of computer vision in vascular surgery. MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception to June 28, 2024. Vascular diseases studied, data sources, methods and outcomes were recorded. Critical appraisal was conducted using the PROBAST and TRIPOD+AI guidelines. Overall, 288 studies were included with an exponential rise from 2017 onwards. The majority of studies addressed aortic pathologies (33%), carotid stenosis (30%), and foot ulcers (25%), while few focused on peripheral artery disease (6%). Most were observational using retrospective (81%) or prospective data (15%), and one clinical trial was included. Dice coefficient (51%) and accuracy (36%) were the most commonly reported performance metrics with infrequent use of AUROC (17%). Only 15% of studies had a low risk of bias and overall adherence to the TRIPOD+AI checklist was relatively poor at 57%. Overall, we suggest greater attention to peripheral artery disease; for dice coefficient and AUROC to be used in segmentation and discrimination tasks, respectively; and for the TRIPOD+AI statement to be consulted early on during model development.
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.