Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41675721›Full record

ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2026

Critical appraisal of Artificial Intelligence and deep-learning tools for intraoperative neurosurgery: hype versus evidence.

Tirath Patel, Ehtisham Haider, Amir Riaz, Muhammad Abbas, Bhumi Daishik Patel

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Tirath PatelDepartment of Neurosurgery, Trinity Medical Sciences University School of Medicine, Kingstown, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
Ehtisham HaiderDepartment of Medicine, Punjab Medical College, Faisalabad, Pakistan.
Amir RiazDepartment of Medicine, Punjab Medical College, Faisalabad, Pakistan.
Muhammad AbbasDepartment of Medicine, Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad, Pakistan.
Bhumi Daishik PatelDepartment of Medicine, Windsor University School of Medicine, Cayon, Saint Kitts and Nevis.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is beginning to aid in several components of the intraoperative workflow, including navigation, instrument tracking, ultrasound analysis, video segmentation, and MRI reconstruction. Early studies demonstrate technical promise but are based on small, single-center datasets with limited heterogeneity and generalizability, and often lead to model overfitting. External validation is rare, and few trials measure the impact on decision-making, complications, or the extent of resection. Differences in annotation standards, imaging protocols and reporting also contribute to the slow speed of translation. Physical, ethical, and regulatory barriers add complexity, especially in settings with limited resources. Recent FDA, EU, and WHO guidance emphasizes lifecycle monitoring, transparency, and real-world evidence, raising the bar for clinical adoption. Progress will require shared databases, standardized reporting, and multicenter implementation studies that track workflow and patient outcomes. Intraoperative AI will definitely not replace a surgeon's judgment, but if carefully developed and rigorously tested, it may provide meaningful clinical value.

Indexed as

clinical validationintraoperative artificial intelligencemachine learningneurosurgeryregulatory frameworks

Identifiers

PMID41675721
PMCPMC12889491

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.