ArticleHealth science reports2026
Beyond the Black Box: Is Artificial Intelligence Ready to Reshape Neurosurgical Decision-Making? A Narrative Review.
Article in Health science reports, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being integrated into neurosurgical practice, offering capabilities in diagnostic imaging, surgical planning, and outcome prediction. However, the "black box" nature of many AI systems generating recommendations without a transparent rationale poses fundamental challenges to adoption in a specialty defined by high-stakes, irreversible interventions. This review critically examines whether AI is ready to reshape neurosurgical decision-making, synthesizing current evidence while systematically analyzing technical, ethical, and regulatory barriers to clinical integration. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was conducted for peer-reviewed studies published between January 2020 and March 2026. Articles reporting AI applications in neurosurgical diagnosis, prognosis, or intraoperative guidance were included. Data were synthesized thematically across clinical domains, with a focus on model interpretability, validation status, and implementation barriers. Results: AI demonstrates significant capabilities: diagnostic accuracy exceeding AUC 0.90 in tumor classification, prognostic improvements up to 15% over traditional methods, and 10%-20% complication reductions with AI-assisted planning. Currently, FDA-cleared tools enable automated tumor segmentation, aneurysm detection, and spinal navigation. However, critical gaps persist: external validation remains rare (< 20% of studies; e.g., 10 of 60 cerebrovascular studies (16.7%) reported external validation, with pooled AUC 0.84 [95% CI, 0.79-0.88] for thrombectomy outcome), most models are trained on homogeneous single-center datasets, and the "black box" problem limits clinician trust. From an implementation science perspective, human factors, including workflow integration and cognitive load, remain underexplored. Conclusion: AI is not ready for independent decision-making in neurosurgery but serves as a powerful augmentative tool when limitations are transparently addressed. Lessons from neurosurgery offer a blueprint for AI integration across high-stake medical specialties. The black box must be opened before AI can truly reshape clinical practice.
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.