Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42373953›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Neurology2026

Moving artificial intelligence from research to real-world clinical use in neurology.

James T Teo, Arman Eshaghi, Mark P Richardson, Lara Jehi, Sandor Beniczky

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

James T TeoKings College Hospital, London, UK. jamesteo@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6899-8319
Arman EshaghiQueen Square Multiple Sclerosis Centre, Department of Neuroinflammation, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
Mark P RichardsonKings College Hospital, London, UK.
Lara JehiEpilepsy Centre at Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic Research, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8041-6377
Sandor BeniczkyDepartment of Clinical Neurophysiology, Danish Epilepsy Centre, Dianalund, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6035-6581

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) applications in neurology have reached an inflection point. Despite US Food and Drug Administration approval of numerous algorithms in neuroimaging, neurophysiology, genetics and chatbots, their real-world impact remains limited. This disconnect between research promise and clinical reality represents a gap in understanding how to translate AI algorithms into clinical benefit for patients globally. In this Perspective, we examine the challenges that prevent clinical AI use in neurology moving beyond pilot studies towards meaningful clinical impact. We consider the steps required in the process of translation, including research, validation of AI models, regulatory approval pathways and clinical implementation. We discuss implementation of AI models as stand-alone products versus embedded platforms, and the requirements for sustainable deployment. Beyond traditional clinical decision support tools, we examine paraclinical applications of AI, including chatbots and ambient voice documentation. We recommend expanding capacity for prospective validation and scaling by implementing and validating technologies across multiple sites and countries, which requires infrastructure from long-term partnerships. Neurology must shift from asking whether AI can work to understanding how to use it safely at scale.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceNeurologyHumans

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.