ReviewAnnals of vascular diseases2026
Artificial Intelligence in Vascular and Endovascular Surgery: From Prediction to Surgeon-Led Clinical Implementation.
Review in Annals of vascular diseases, 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
Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown promising performance in vascular imaging, risk prediction, procedural support, surveillance, and education, but its translation into routine surgical care remains limited. This narrative review addresses a focused question: what evidence supports the transition of vascular AI from technical prediction to surgeon-led clinical implementation? A targeted PubMed search through July 24, 2026 identified international and Japan-based studies across the perioperative pathway. Deep-learning systems can segment aortic anatomy, characterize aneurysm or dissection, and support post-EVAR imaging. Machine-learning models may stratify mortality and treatment risk, whereas computer vision, image fusion, wearable monitoring, and large language models extend potential use into procedures, follow-up, and education. Japanese reports demonstrate locally relevant innovation in aortic imaging, EVAR prognosis, postoperative monitoring, and specialty education; however, most evidence remains retrospective, single-center, or developmental. Selected surgeon-led workflows, including quantitative spinal cord imaging after aortic repair, are presented with explicit data provenance as illustrative demonstrations, not proof of clinical efficacy. Progress requires external validation, workflow and human-factors evaluation, prospective impact studies, transparent reporting, and post-deployment monitoring. AI should augment vascular specialists, with surgeons retaining responsibility for clinical questions, verification, interpretation, and patient care.
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.