ReviewJournal of bone oncology2026
Clinical applications of MRI-based artificial intelligence in spinal metastases: A systematic review.
Review in Journal of bone oncology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This review systematically evaluates the current research landscape, methodological characteristics, and translational challenges of artificial intelligence (AI) integrated with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) across the diagnostic and therapeutic pathway of spinal metastases, with the aim of informing clinical practice and future research. Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Original studies investigating AI models, including machine learning, deep learning, and large language models, developed from MRI data for spinal metastases were included. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. Sixty-one studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Results: The included studies focused on four core clinical tasks: diagnosis and pathological classification (23 studies), clinical prognosis and risk stratification (17 studies), lesion detection and segmentation (16 studies), and automated clinical scoring and report analysis (5 studies). AI models showed promising performance across these tasks, with the highest area under the curve (AUC) for benign-malignant differentiation reaching 0.98 and the highest Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) for automatic lesion segmentation exceeding 0.85. Nevertheless, important limitations remain. Most studies were single-center retrospective investigations (73%), and the majority addressed isolated tasks rather than integrated clinical workflows. Important gaps also persist in multicenter generalizability, long-term survival prediction, and multimodal data integration. Conclusion: MRI-based AI has substantial potential to improve the diagnosis and management of spinal metastases. Future studies should emphasize large-scale, multi-center prospective validation and integrated intelligent systems supporting screening, decision-making, treatment response assessment, and long-term follow-up.
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.