ReviewWorld journal of orthopedics2025
Artificial intelligence and machine learning in spine care: Advancing precision diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation.
Review in World journal of orthopedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cost-effectiveness of artificial intelligence interventions for musculoskeletal disorders of the spine: a systematic review.Rheumatology international · 2026Pooled it
- Algorithmic fairness reporting in artificial intelligence for spinal deformity: a systematic review.Spine deformity · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence for Clinical Decision Support in Rural Spine Care: A Narrative Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Next-generation biomedical nanorobots: active design, intelligent control, and translational opportunities in regenerative and minimally invasive medicine.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in postural management: a critical review of detection, correction, and clinical applicability.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in rehabilitation: a review of clinical effectiveness, real-world performance, safety, and equity across modalities and settings.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
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
Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are transforming spine care by addressing diagnostics, treatment planning, and rehabilitation challenges. This study highlights advancements in precision medicine for spinal pathologies, leveraging AI and ML to enhance diagnostic accuracy through deep learning algorithms, enabling faster and more accurate detection of abnormalities. AI-powered robotics and surgical navigation systems improve implant placement precision and reduce complications in complex spine surgeries. Wearable devices and virtual platforms, designed with AI, offer personalized, adaptive therapies that improve treatment adherence and recovery outcomes. AI also enables preventive interventions by assessing spine condition risks early. Despite progress, challenges remain, including limited healthcare datasets, algorithmic biases, ethical concerns, and integration into existing systems. Interdisciplinary collaboration and explainable AI frameworks are essential to unlock AI's full potential in spine care. Future developments include multimodal AI systems integrating imaging, clinical, and genetic data for holistic treatment approaches. AI and ML promise significant improvements in diagnostic accuracy, treatment personalization, service accessibility, and cost efficiency, paving the way for more streamlined and effective spine care, ultimately enhancing patient outcomes.
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.