ArticlePloS one2026
Artificial intelligence in spine care: A scoping review of diagnostic applications.
Article in PloS one, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used to enhance diagnostic accuracy, automate image interpretation, and support clinical decision-making. In the field of spine care, applications include MRI and CT-based detection of lumbar disc degeneration, spinal stenosis, vertebral fractures, and axial spondyloarthritis, as well as emerging symptom-based and multimodal diagnostic tools. However, evidence remains dispersed across modalities and conditions, and the quality and clinical readiness of AI systems vary. This scoping review maps current AI applications for diagnosing spinal disorders and identifies gaps for future research and clinical translation.
methodsThis review followed Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Ovid MEDLINE, AMED, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from January 2019 to December 2024. Eligible studies were mapped according to AI methodology, diagnostic target, data source, and validation approach, and were required to involve human participants, include sufficient methodological detail, and published in English peer-reviewed journals. No geographic restrictions were applied. Data was extracted on study design, AI methodology, diagnostic target, validation approach, and usability. Methodological quality was assessed using a 19-point scoring system covering study design, reporting clarity, data validation, and feature selection.
resultsForty-six studies met the inclusion criteria, conducted primarily in Asia and Europe, with two studies from North America and one from South America. Most investigations were retrospective, imaging-based deep learning models applied to MRI or CT for detecting disc herniation, lumbar spinal stenosis, modic changes, vertebral fractures, and sacroiliitis. Several studies used prospective designs or external validation. Diagnostic performance was generally high across imaging models, with many studies describing accuracy that approached or matched clinician benchmarks, particularly in sacroiliitis classification, disc disease detection, and stenosis grading. Methodological scores ranged from 7.5 to 17.5 out of 19, with recurrent weaknesses in handling missing data, feature selection, and data element validation.
conclusionThis review maps a growing body of literature on AI applications for diagnosing spinal disorders, with studies most frequently reporting favorable performance for MRI- and CT-based detection of degenerative and inflammatory conditions. Evidence remains preliminary and heterogeneous.
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.