ReviewCyborg and bionic systems (Washington, D.C.)2026
Application of Artificial Intelligence in the Prediction and Management of Stroke Rehabilitation.
Review in Cyborg and bionic systems (Washington, D.C.), 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
Artificial intelligence is being studied across the stroke care pathway, but evidence from acute diagnosis, early prognosis, rehabilitation-outcome prediction, and long-term management is often discussed without clearly separating these clinical tasks. This structured narrative review adds an integrated framework that maps each application to its decision point, relevance to rehabilitation, validation level, and readiness for clinical use. Unlike previous technology-centered reviews, it explicitly separates acute prognostic evidence from rehabilitation-specific evidence and distinguishes technical performance from transportability, clinical impact, and rehabilitation benefit. Acute imaging and prognostic models may provide baseline information for later rehabilitation planning, but their diagnostic or prognostic performance does not establish rehabilitation efficacy. Most rehabilitation models and robotic, virtual-reality, brain-computer interface, wearable, and home-monitoring applications remain supported mainly by internal validation or early exploratory studies. Small or selected datasets, limited external and prospective validation, uncertain workflow effects, and sparse patient-centered outcomes continue to constrain clinical interpretation.
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.