Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38060748›Full record

ReviewCureus2023

Using Artificial Intelligence to Predict the Development of Kyphosis Disease: A Systematic Review.

Yehia Y Hussein, Muhammad Mohsin Khan

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 41% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yehia Y HusseinGeneral Practice, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, QAT.
Muhammad Mohsin KhanNeurosurgery, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, QAT.
Hamad Medical Corporation · QA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of artificial intelligence in the field of medicine - including spine surgery - is now widespread and prominent. Kyphosis is a prevalent disease in spine surgery with abundant morbidity. Predicting the development of kyphosis disease has been somewhat difficult, and the use of AI to aid in the prediction of kyphosis disease may yield new opportunities for spine surgeons. The aim of this review is to recognize the contributions of AI in predicting the development of kyphosis. Five databases/registers were searched to identify suitable records for this review. Nine studies were included in this review. The studies demonstrated that AI could be utilized to predict the development of kyphosis disease after corrective surgery for a variety of spinal pathologies, including thoracolumbar burst fracture, cervical deformity, previous kyphosis disease, and adult degenerative scoliosis. The studies utilized a variety of AI modalities, including support vector machines, decision trees, random forests, and artificial neural networks. Two of the included studies also compared the use of different AI modalities in predicting the development of kyphosis disease. The literature has demonstrated that AI can be utilized effectively to predict the development of kyphosis disease. However, the current research is limited and only sparsely covers this broad field. Therefore, we suggest that further research is needed to explore the uncharted opportunities in predicting the development of kyphosis disease. Also, further research would confirm and consolidate the benefits demonstrated by the literature included in this review.

Indexed as

ai and machine learningai & robotics in healthcarekyphosisnew technology in spine surgeryspine surgery

Identifiers

PMID38060748
PMCPMC10698623
OpenAlexW4388414284

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.