ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2026
Artificial intelligence in thoracic surgery: a narrative review of clinical advances and applications in 2025.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into thoracic surgery accelerated notably over the course of 2025, transitioning from isolated diagnostic aids toward comprehensive clinical pathway integration. The objective of this narrative review is to synthesize the latest evidence on AI applications across the entire thoracic surgical workflow, organized along the patient care continuum from preoperative assessment through intraoperative execution to postoperative management. Methods: A PubMed/MEDLINE search was performed on March 6, 2026, and retrieved 378 English-language records published between January 1, 2025 and March 6, 2026. After title and abstract screening, potentially relevant articles underwent full-text review, and studies addressing the clinical applications of AI and related digital technologies across the thoracic surgical pathway were included in this narrative review. Key Content and Findings: In the preoperative domain, large-scale foundation models and computational pathology systems have demonstrated strong performance in nodule risk stratification and noninvasive genomic prediction [area under the curve (AUC) >0.900]. Notably, dual-phase computed tomography (CT) systems such as NeoPred have achieved validation for predicting pathological response to neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy. Intraoperatively, augmented reality (AR) navigation has achieved randomized controlled trial (RCT)-level evidence outperforming conventional localization, while generative AI systems have attained expert-level anatomical recognition for surgical video analytics. Postoperatively, wearable continuous monitoring systems and digital therapeutics (DTx) entered prospective clinical validation. Furthermore, large language models (LLMs) emerged as increasingly important tools for automated surgical documentation. Despite these advances, most studies remain retrospective, and domain shift across institutions limits generalizability. Conclusions: While AI has substantially affected thoracic surgery, important gaps persist regarding prospective validation and regulatory governance. Future priorities must focus on prospective multicenter interventional trials linking AI predictions to standardized clinical action protocols, federated learning architectures to overcome data silos, and the development of specialty-specific guidelines building upon the Artificial Intelligence Organization for Next Generation Surgeons (AIONS) 2025 consensus.
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.