Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42870155›Full record

ReviewJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026

Use of Machine Learning and Imaging to Predict Outcomes After Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review.

Jacob Gould, Saarang Patel, Catherine Tang, Saud Zaidan, Hazem S Ghaith, Noah Yaffe, Guan Li, Julian Gendreau

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Jacob GouldDepartment of Neurological Surgery, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Saarang PatelDepartment of Biological Sciences, Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ, USA.
Catherine TangDepartment of History and Sociology of Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Saud ZaidanDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, 3303 S Bond Ave Building 1 8 Floor, Portland, OR, 97239, USA.
Hazem S GhaithDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, 3303 S Bond Ave Building 1 8 Floor, Portland, OR, 97239, USA.
Noah YaffeDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, 3303 S Bond Ave Building 1 8 Floor, Portland, OR, 97239, USA.
Guan LiDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA.
Julian GendreauDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, 3303 S Bond Ave Building 1 8 Floor, Portland, OR, 97239, USA. gendreauj@ohsu.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Postoperative outcomes following lumbar spine surgery remain variable, and existing clinical risk stratification methods offer limited predictive accuracy. Advances in machine learning enable quantitative analysis of routinely acquired spinal imaging, creating opportunities to improve preoperative outcome prediction. However, the methodological quality and clinical readiness of imaging-based machine learning models in lumbar spine surgery have not been systematically evaluated. This systematic review followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were searched through October 2025 for studies using machine learning models trained on imaging data (MRI, CT, or radiographs) to predict postoperative outcomes after lumbar spine surgery. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). Twenty-six studies published between 2019 and 2025 met inclusion criteria. Most models predicted patient-reported or clinical outcomes, with fewer addressing complications, structural outcomes, or imaging-derived biomarkers. MRI was the predominant modality. Model discrimination was frequently moderate to high (median AUC, 0.83), though external validation and calibration reporting were uncommon. All studies demonstrated high risk of bias, primarily related to analysis and validation practices. Imaging-based machine learning models show promise for improving preoperative outcome prediction after lumbar spine surgery, but methodological limitations limit current clinical applicability. Greater emphasis on external validation, standardized outcomes, and prospective evaluation is needed to support safe translation into routine spine care.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceLumbar spine surgeryMachine learningMRIRadiomics

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.