ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2026
Critical appraisal of Artificial Intelligence and deep-learning tools for intraoperative neurosurgery: hype versus evidence.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Beyond the Black Box: Is Artificial Intelligence Ready to Reshape Neurosurgical Decision-Making? A Narrative Review.Health science reports · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.