SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025
The role of artificial intelligence in diagnostic neurosurgery: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- ChatNSG: An Overview of Contemporary and Emerging Artificial Intelligence Models for the Neurosurgeon.Journal of neurological surgery. Part B, Skull base · 2026Article
- Characterizing industry payments for FDA-approved AI medical devices.Health affairs scholar · 2025Article
- Evaluation of ChatGPT's and Gemini's Ability to Find Studies About Neurosurgical Training and Trainees' Anatomy Understanding.ANZ journal of surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly applied in diagnostic neurosurgery, enhancing precision and decision-making in neuro-oncology, vascular, functional, and spinal subspecialties. Despite its potential, variability in outcomes necessitates a systematic review of its performance and applicability.
methodsA comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted from January 2020 to January 2025. Inclusion criteria comprised studies utilizing AI for diagnostic neurosurgery, reporting quantitative performance metrics. Studies were excluded if they focused on non-human subjects, lacked clear performance metrics, or if they did not directly relate to AI applications in diagnostic neurosurgery. Risk of bias was assessed using the PROBAST tool. This study is registered on PROSPERO, number CRD42025631040 on January 26th, 2025.
resultsWithin the 193 studies, neural networks (30%) and hybrid models (48.2%) dominated. Studies were categorised into neuro-oncology (52.69%), vascular neurosurgery (19.89%), functional neurosurgery (16.67%), and spinal neurosurgery (11.83%). Median accuracies exceeded 85% in most categories, with neuro-oncology achieving high diagnostic accuracy for tumour detection, grading, and segmentation. Vascular neurosurgery models excelled in stroke and intracranial haemorrhage detection, with median AUC values of 88% and 97%, respectively. Functional and spinal applications showed promising results, though variability in sensitivity and specificity underscores the need for standardised datasets and validation. DISCUSSION: The review's limitations include the lack of data weighting, absence of meta-analysis, limited data collection timeframe, variability in study quality, and risk of bias in some studies.
conclusionAI in neurosurgery shows potential for improving diagnostic accuracy across neurosurgical domains. Models used for stroke, ICH, aneurysm detection, and functional conditions such as Parkinson's disease and epilepsy demonstrate promising results. However, variability in sensitivity, specificity, and AUC values across studies underscores the need for further research and model refinement to ensure clinical viability and effectiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.