ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2026
Advent of Artificial Intelligence in Spine Research: An Updated Perspective.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large Language Models in Preclinical Spine Research: A Scoping Review and Expert Perspective on Evidence-Aware Experimental Workflows.JOR spine · 2026Article
- A machine learning model for automated anesthesia risk classification in lumbar spinal stenosis patients: development and multicenter validation.Frontiers in medicine · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) has rapidly evolved from an experimental tool in spine research to a multi-domain framework that has significantly influenced imaging analysis, surgical decision-making, and individualized outcome prediction. Recent advances have expanded beyond isolated applications, enabling automated image interpretation, patient-specific risk stratification, discovery of qualitative phenotypes, and integration of heterogeneous clinical and biomechanical data. These developments signal a shift toward more comprehensive, context-aware analytic systems capable of supporting complex clinical workflows in spine care. Despite these gains, widespread clinical adoption remains limited. High internal performance metrics do not consistently translate into reliable generalizability, interpretability, or real-world clinical readiness. Persistent challenges, which include dataset heterogeneity, transportability across institutions, alignment with clinical decision-making processes, and appropriate validation strategies, continue to constrain widespread implementation. In this perspective, we synthesize post-2019 advances in spine AI across key application domains: imaging analysis, predictive modeling and decision support, qualitative phenotyping, and emerging hybrid and language-based frameworks through a unified clinical-readiness lens. By examining how methodological progress aligns with clinical context, validation rigor, and interpretability, we highlight both the transformative potential of AI in spine research and the critical steps required for responsible, effective integration into routine clinical practice.
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.