ReviewKnee surgery & related research2026
Artificial intelligence in orthopedics: current applications, challenges, and future directions.
Review in Knee surgery & related research, 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.
- Multi‑omics integration in osteoarthritis: Unraveling cell‑type‑specific gene‑metabolite networks for precision medicine (Review).International journal of molecular medicine · 2026Review
- Integrating Artificial Intelligence into Orthopedic Practice: Modeling Attitudes and Intentions to Use AI.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence research in orthopedics has grown rapidly, yet a substantial gap remains between technical development and clinical translation. This narrative review summarizes current applications of artificial intelligence in orthopedic practice and highlights barriers to implementation. MAIN BODY: Current work converges on three domains: machine learning for structured perioperative risk prediction, deep learning for standardized musculoskeletal imaging, and large language models for workflow and decision support. Applications such as automated fracture detection, Kellgren-Lawrence grading for osteoarthritis, and transfusion risk modeling are approaching clinical maturity. However, routine adoption is limited by algorithmic opacity, performance degradation in new clinical environments, and poor fit within existing workflows. We argue that progress should shift from increasing model complexity toward rigorous evaluation, including external validation on independent cohorts. In addition, probability calibration and uncertainty estimation are important for trustworthy risk communication. Future directions may include multimodal "digital twin" approaches that integrate electronic medical records, imaging phenotypes, and intraoperative data into patient-specific trajectories.
conclusionsThe clinical impact of artificial intelligence in orthopedics will depend on life-cycle governance and demonstrated net benefit, prioritizing reliability and implementation science over retrospective benchmark performance.
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.