ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2026
Artificial intelligence in neurosurgical decision-making: promise and peril in the United States practice.
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 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.
- Beyond the Black Box: Is Artificial Intelligence Ready to Reshape Neurosurgical Decision-Making? A Narrative Review.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Editorial: Artificial intelligence in neurosurgical practices: current trends and future opportunities.Frontiers in neurology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into neurosurgical practices in the United States is transforming how diagnoses are interpreted, how surgical plans are developed, and how guidance is provided during operations as clinical needs continue to grow. Models based on radiomics and the Food and Drug Administration approved tools for tumor segmentation, aneurysm identification, and spinal navigation are showing enhanced accuracy and decreased variability among observers, highlighting AI's potential for significant change. Nevertheless, there are major concerns about the opacity of black-box models, inaccurate outputs, and the increasing legal uncertainties arising from AI-related errors. Ethical challenges, such as the risk of clinician de-skilling, diminished professional autonomy, and exacerbated inequities in rural areas with limited access to imaging, complicate responsible deployment. This letter emphasizes the necessity for transparent validation processes, oversight led by clinicians, diverse and inclusive datasets, and improved regulatory protections. Requiring AI competency training and nationally reporting adverse events associated with AI are crucial to ensure that AI enhances clinical judgment rather than replacing it, thereby maintaining patient safety, equity, and professional integrity in neurosurgical decision-making.
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.