ReviewSpine deformity2026
State-of-the-art review in AI and digital technologies for spine deformity.
Review in Spine deformity, 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
purposeArtificial intelligence (AI) and digital technologies are increasingly being used across the continuum of spinal deformity care, from screening and diagnosis to surgical planning, intraoperative assistance, and postoperative follow-up. This State-of-the-Art Review provides a clinically oriented synthesis of current applications, summarizes the available evidence supporting their use, and discusses the requirements for safe and effective clinical translation.
methodsPeer-reviewed literature published primarily within the past five years was reviewed, with earlier studies included when considered fundamental to the development or clinical understanding of the field. Applications were organized according to their role in screening and diagnosis, deformity assessment, prediction and decision support, preoperative planning, intraoperative technologies, postoperative follow-up, and clinical workflow support. Emphasis was placed on the maturity of available evidence, validation strategies, and potential clinical utility.
resultsPublished studies describe a rapidly expanding range of applications, including automated radiographic measurements, radiation-free screening approaches, automated deformity classification, prediction of curve progression and postoperative outcomes, preoperative planning, patient-specific physics-based biomechanical simulations, remote monitoring technologies, and natural language processing-based clinical tools. The strongest evidence currently supports automated image analysis, selected predictive models, and specific planning technologies. However, many systems remain at the proof-of-concept stage and have been developed using retrospective single-centre datasets. Although technical performance is often promising, independent multicentre validation, prospective evaluation, assessment of clinical impact, and demonstration of integration within routine workflows remain limited for many applications.
conclusionAI and digital technologies have the potential to improve the consistency, efficiency, and personalization of spinal deformity care. Nevertheless, most current applications should be considered decision-support tools rather than autonomous systems. Future progress will depend not only on algorithmic performance but also on rigorous validation, transparent reporting, prospective clinical evaluation, and risk-informed assessment frameworks that align the level of evidence with the intended clinical role and potential impact of each technology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42711524What 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.