ArticleSpine deformity2026
Artificial intelligence in early onset scoliosis: a scoping review.
Article in Spine deformity, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical efficacy and platform-specific analysis of robotic navigation systems in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- State-of-the-art review in AI and digital technologies for spine deformity.Spine deformity · 2026Review
- Comment on "Automatic radiation-free evaluation of Cobb angle for spinal curvature based on fringe projection profilometry and deep learning technology".Spine deformity · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEarly onset scoliosis comprises spinal deformities in children younger than 10, creating challenges in diagnosis, risk assessment, and management. Timely intervention is vital, because untreated deformity can lead to cardiopulmonary compromise. Artificial intelligence and machine learning are reshaping orthopaedic care by improving detection, forecasting progression, and guiding treatment. This scoping review maps current use in this patient population.
methodsFollowing PRISMA ScR standards, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus for studies that developed, applied, or validated AI models to diagnose, manage, or predict outcomes in EOS.
resultsAfter removing duplicates, 352 records were screened, 22 full texts were reviewed, and 11 studies met inclusion criteria. Most investigations (63.6%) employed convolutional neural networks (CNNs) such as Mask R CNN, EfficientNet, and U Net. Ensemble learning with gradient boosting, random forest, and logistic regression (9.1%), Gaussian Naïve Bayes (9.1%), sparse additive machines (9.1%), and unsupervised clustering (9.1%) were also used. Image analysis dominated (72.7%), automating radiographic measurements (Cobb angle, skeletal maturity) and monitoring growing-rod distraction. Predictive models (27.3%) estimated prolonged hospital stay, unplanned reoperation, or postoperative complications. Mean accuracy was 91.2% (range 86.1% to 94.0%). Common limitations were small sample sizes, single-centre data, and limited external validation.
conclusionAI shows promise for EOS imaging and risk prediction, yet translation is hindered by methodological heterogeneity and scarce external validation. Future work should adopt standardised reporting, aggregate multicentre datasets, and test models prospectively in large cohorts.
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.