Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38628700›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2024

Global research trends and hotspots of artificial intelligence research in spinal cord neural injury and restoration-a bibliometrics and visualization analysis.

Guangyi Tao, Shun Yang, Junjie Xu, Linzi Wang, Bin Yang

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Transcriptomics Insights into Spinal Cord Injury for Therapy Development.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: A Specialty-Level Overview of Emerging AI Trends.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    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

5 authors.

Guangyi TaoCollege of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Henan University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Zhengzhou, China.
Shun YangDepartment of Pain, Henan Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine/The Second Affiliated Hospital of Henan University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Zhengzhou, China.
Junjie XuCollege of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Henan University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Zhengzhou, China.
Linzi WangCollege of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Henan University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Zhengzhou, China.
Bin YangDepartment of Pain, Henan Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine/The Second Affiliated Hospital of Henan University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Zhengzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) technology has made breakthroughs in spinal cord neural injury and restoration in recent years. It has a positive impact on clinical treatment. This study explores AI research's progress and hotspots in spinal cord neural injury and restoration. It also analyzes research shortcomings related to this area and proposes potential solutions. Methods: We used CiteSpace 6.1.R6 and VOSviewer 1.6.19 to research WOS articles on AI research in spinal cord neural injury and restoration. Results: A total of 1,502 articles were screened, in which the United States dominated; Kadone, Hideki (13 articles, University of Tsukuba, JAPAN) was the author with the highest number of publications; ARCH PHYS MED REHAB (IF = 4.3) was the most cited journal, and topics included molecular biology, immunology, neurology, sports, among other related areas. Conclusion: We pinpointed three research hotspots for AI research in spinal cord neural injury and restoration: (1) intelligent robots and limb exoskeletons to assist rehabilitation training; (2) brain-computer interfaces; and (3) neuromodulation and noninvasive electrical stimulation. In addition, many new hotspots were discussed: (1) starting with image segmentation models based on convolutional neural networks; (2) the use of AI to fabricate polymeric biomaterials to provide the microenvironment required for neural stem cell-derived neural network tissues; (3) AI survival prediction tools, and transcription factor regulatory networks in the field of genetics were discussed. Although AI research in spinal cord neural injury and restoration has many benefits, the technology has several limitations (data and ethical issues). The data-gathering problem should be addressed in future research, which requires a significant sample of quality clinical data to build valid AI models. At the same time, research on genomics and other mechanisms in this field is fragile. In the future, machine learning techniques, such as AI survival prediction tools and transcription factor regulatory networks, can be utilized for studies related to the up-regulation of regeneration-related genes and the production of structural proteins for axonal growth.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencebrain-computer Interfaceconvolutional neural networkdeep learningneural regenerationneuroelectrical stimulationrehabilitation robotspinal cord injury

Identifiers

PMID38628700
PMCPMC11018935

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.