Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37164481›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2023

Artificial Intelligence and Predictive Modeling in Spinal Oncology: A Narrative Review.

Rene Harmen Kuijten, Hester Zijlstra, Olivier Quinten Groot, Joseph Hasbrouck Schwab

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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. Review
  2. Review
  3. Predictive Modeling for Spinal Metastatic Disease.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    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

4 authors.

Rene Harmen KuijtenDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA rkuijten@mgh.harvard.edu rhkuijten@gmail.com.
Hester ZijlstraDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Olivier Quinten GrootDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Joseph Hasbrouck SchwabDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) tremendously influences our daily lives and the medical field, changing the scope of medicine. One of the fields where AI, and, in particular, predictive modeling, holds great promise is spinal oncology. An accurate patient prognosis is essential to determine the optimal treatment strategy for patients with spinal metastases. Multiple studies demonstrated that the physician's survival predictions are inaccurate, which resulted in the development of numerous predictive models. However, difficulties arise when trying to interpret these models and, more importantly, assess their quality.

objectiveTo provide an overview of all stages and challenges in developing predictive models using the Skeletal Oncology Research Group machine learning algorithms as an example.

methodsA narrative review of all relevant articles known to the authors was conducted.

resultsBuilding a predictive model consists of 6 stages: preparation, development, internal validation, presentation, external validation, and implementation. During validation, the following measures are essential to assess the model's performance: calibration, discrimination, decision curve analysis, and the Brier score. The structured methodology in developing, validating, and reporting the model is vital when building predictive models. Two principal guidelines are the transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis checklist and the prediction model risk of bias assessment. To date, many predictive modeling studies lack the right validation measures or improperly report their methodology.

conclusionsA new health care age is being ushered in by the rapid advancement of AI and its applications in spinal oncology. A myriad of predictive models are being developed; however, the subsequent stages, quality of validation, transparent reporting, and implementation still need improvement. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Given the rapid rise and use of AI prediction models in patient care, it is valuable to know how to assess their quality and to understand how these models influence clinical practice. This article provides guidance on how to approach this. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4:

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceclinical decision supportmachine learningorthopedic surgeryprediction toolsspinal oncology

Identifiers

PMID37164481
PMCPMC10318913

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.