ReviewJournal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea)2026
Artificial Intelligence That Changes Clinical Neurology Practice: Translating Algorithms Into Actionable Care.
Review in Journal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea), 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) has stimulated extensive research in clinical neurology, but relatively few AI systems have meaningfully changed bedside decision-making. This translational gap is not explained solely by inadequate algorithms. More often, AI models in neurology remain outside routine practice because they are trained on unstable labels, validated in narrow or single-center datasets, evaluated primarily by discrimination metrics, disconnected from clinical workflow, and deployed without prospective monitoring, reimbursement frameworks, or accountability. In this review, we propose the NEURAL framework for practice-changing neurological AI: Novel clinical insight, External and prospective validation, Utility over accuracy, Real-time workflow integration, Algorithmic transparency, and Long-term outcome linkage. Using this framework, we examine evidence across acute stroke, epilepsy and electroencephalography (EEG), sleep medicine, neurodegenerative disease, movement disorders, headache, vestibular disorders, neuroimmunology, rehabilitation, and neurocritical care. The most clinically advanced examples come from acute stroke, where imaging-based selection, large-vessel occlusion detection, and automated notification are linked to urgent, pathway-defined interventions. Automated EEG triage, focal cortical dysplasia detection, selected sleep-analysis tools, quantitative biomarker pipelines, and AI-assisted longitudinal monitoring may also become clinically meaningful if tested prospectively in real-world workflows. Many high-performing models for dementia progression, prodromal Parkinson disease, outpatient treatment response, and long-horizon risk prediction remain pre-implementation tools because they do not yet define a validated clinical action. Future neurological AI should therefore be judged less by whether it recognizes complex patterns and more by whether it improves the right decision for the right patient at the right time. A clinically useful AI system must demonstrate not only accuracy, but also actionability, workflow fit, equity, safety, sustainability, and measurable benefit for patients and health systems.
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.