ReviewEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2026
Artificial intelligence-based prediction of cerebrospinal fluid leak in skull base surgery: a scoping review.
Review in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak remains one of the most significant complications of skull base surgery, particularly in endoscopic endonasal and transsphenoidal approaches. Accurate risk stratification may improve surgical planning and reconstruction strategies. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based models have been increasingly investigated for CSF leak prediction; however, the evidence remains methodologically heterogeneous. This scoping review aimed to map the current literature and summarize data sources, modeling approaches, validation strategies, and reported performance.
methodsThis scoping review followed PRISMA-ScR guidance. Eligibility was structured using the Population-Concept-Context framework. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for English-language studies published from 2019 to 2025. Two authors independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts and independently charted data using a standardized table; disagreements were resolved by consensus. Eligible original human studies applied AI/ML to predict perioperative surgical CSF leak or to derive an imaging biomarker for identifying spontaneous lateral skull-base CSF leak/encephalocele relevant to surgical assessment. No formal protocol was prepared or registered.
resultsFifty-five records were identified, and nine primary studies met the eligibility criteria after duplicate removal and full-text assessment. Six studies predicted intraoperative CSF leak, two predicted postoperative leak, and one evaluated a deep-learning-derived CT biomarker for identifying spontaneous lateral skull-base CSF leak or encephalocele relevant to surgical assessment. Three studies used classical machine-learning methods, four used predominantly deep neural-network or convolutional-neural-network approaches, one compared classical models with a feedforward neural network, and one used a BERT-based natural-language-processing model. One study reported prospective temporal validation; none reported independent external validation at another institution. Among studies reporting AUC, values ranged from 0.69 to 1.00; accuracy, where reported, ranged from 70% to 98.33%.
conclusionsAI-based prediction of CSF leak is a promising but evolving field. Methodological heterogeneity and the absence of independent external validation constrain clinical translation. Future studies should prioritize standardized outcomes, multicenter datasets, and prospective validation to support integration into clinical decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42867660What 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.