ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2026
A knowledge-based Bayesian network reveals shared prediction errors with physicians in Gamma Knife radiosurgery.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although Artificial Intelligence (AI) has shown strong predictive performance in medicine, its role in providing cognitive support remains unclear. We developed a knowledge-based expert system using a Bayesian Network (BN) to explicitly model an expert neurosurgeon's clinical reasoning for predicting outcomes of Gamma Knife radiosurgery. The BN structure was constructed from elicited expert knowledge and encoded as a directed acyclic (DAG) graph that represents clinically relevant variables and their interrelationships. Model parameters were estimated using a clinical dataset to predict patient overall survival (OS). In parallel, physicians independently estimated outcomes for the same patients, enabling a direct comparison of predictive performance and error characteristics. The BN captured clinically plausible reasoning patterns and produced less skewed prediction errors than physicians, suggesting partial mitigation of individual cognitive bias. However, both the BN and physicians exhibited a heavy-tailed error distribution, systematically failing to predict patients with unexpectedly long-term survival. This convergence of error patterns indicates that both human and model-based predictions are constrained by unobserved or unmodeled factors, limiting their ability to capture exceptional outcomes. These findings highlight a limitation of predictive paradigms based on current expert knowledge and suggest the need for iterative refinement of knowledge-based models. Incorporating additional expert knowledge and updating the underlying structure may help identify previously unmodeled relationships and reduce unexplained variance. Taken together, our results position knowledge-based BNs not only as interpretable predictive tools, but also as evolving frameworks for integrating clinical knowledge and probing the shared limits of human-AI decision-making, highlighting their potential as computational cognitive neuroprosthetic systems that aim to augment physicians' clinical reasoning under uncertainty.
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.