ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2025
Letter to the Editor concerning "AI versus the spinal surgeons in the management of controversial spinal surgery scenarios" by Mehmet, S. et al. (Eur spine J [2025]: doi.org/10.1007/s00586-025-08825-w).
Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We have conducted an in-depth analysis of the comparative study on AI and spinal surgeons presented by Mehmet et al. While we recognize the significant contributions of this work, we also identify certain limitations, including a restricted sample size, extended data collection intervals, and inadequate validation of AI outputs. To address these issues, we propose increasing the sample diversity, reducing the duration between data collection points, implementing double-blind evaluations of AI responses, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, and establishing a long-term monitoring framework. These measures aim to enhance the scientific rigor, generalizability, and reliability of AI applications in clinical settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40381027What 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.