The diagnostic and prognostic capability of artificial intelligence in spinal cord injury: A systematic review

IF 1.9 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Brain & spine Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.bas.2025.104208
Saran Singh Gill , Hariharan Subbiah Ponniah , Sho Giersztein , Rishi Miriyala Anantharaj , Srikar Reddy Namireddy , Joshua Killilea , DanieleS.C. Ramsay , Ahmed Salih , Ahkash Thavarajasingam , Daniel Scurtu , Dragan Jankovic , Salvatore Russo , Andreas Kramer , Santhosh G. Thavarajasingam
{"title":"The diagnostic and prognostic capability of artificial intelligence in spinal cord injury: A systematic review","authors":"Saran Singh Gill ,&nbsp;Hariharan Subbiah Ponniah ,&nbsp;Sho Giersztein ,&nbsp;Rishi Miriyala Anantharaj ,&nbsp;Srikar Reddy Namireddy ,&nbsp;Joshua Killilea ,&nbsp;DanieleS.C. Ramsay ,&nbsp;Ahmed Salih ,&nbsp;Ahkash Thavarajasingam ,&nbsp;Daniel Scurtu ,&nbsp;Dragan Jankovic ,&nbsp;Salvatore Russo ,&nbsp;Andreas Kramer ,&nbsp;Santhosh G. Thavarajasingam","doi":"10.1016/j.bas.2025.104208","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Artificial intelligence (AI) models have shown potential for diagnosing and prognosticating traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI), but their clinical utility remains uncertain.</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>ology: The primary aim was to evaluate the performance of AI algorithms in diagnosing and prognosticating tSCI. Subsequent systematic searching of seven databases identified studies evaluating AI models. PROBAST and TRIPOD tools were used to assess the quality and reporting of included studies (PROSPERO: CRD42023464722). Fourteen studies, comprising 20 models and 280,817 pooled imaging datasets, were included. Analysis was conducted in line with the SWiM guidelines.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>For prognostication, 11 studies predicted outcomes including AIS improvement (30%), mortality and ambulatory ability (20% each), and discharge or length of stay (10%). The mean AUC was 0.770 (range: 0.682–0.902), indicating moderate predictive performance. Diagnostic models utilising DTI, CT, and T2-weighted MRI with CNN-based segmentation achieved a weighted mean accuracy of 0.898 (range: 0.813–0.938), outperforming prognostic models.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>AI demonstrates strong diagnostic accuracy (mean accuracy: 0.898) and moderate prognostic capability (mean AUC: 0.770) for tSCI. However, the lack of standardised frameworks and external validation limits clinical applicability. Future models should integrate multimodal data, including imaging, patient characteristics, and clinician judgment, to improve utility and alignment with clinical practice.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72443,"journal":{"name":"Brain & spine","volume":"5 ","pages":"Article 104208"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain & spine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277252942500027X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Artificial intelligence (AI) models have shown potential for diagnosing and prognosticating traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI), but their clinical utility remains uncertain.

Method

ology: The primary aim was to evaluate the performance of AI algorithms in diagnosing and prognosticating tSCI. Subsequent systematic searching of seven databases identified studies evaluating AI models. PROBAST and TRIPOD tools were used to assess the quality and reporting of included studies (PROSPERO: CRD42023464722). Fourteen studies, comprising 20 models and 280,817 pooled imaging datasets, were included. Analysis was conducted in line with the SWiM guidelines.

Results

For prognostication, 11 studies predicted outcomes including AIS improvement (30%), mortality and ambulatory ability (20% each), and discharge or length of stay (10%). The mean AUC was 0.770 (range: 0.682–0.902), indicating moderate predictive performance. Diagnostic models utilising DTI, CT, and T2-weighted MRI with CNN-based segmentation achieved a weighted mean accuracy of 0.898 (range: 0.813–0.938), outperforming prognostic models.

Conclusion

AI demonstrates strong diagnostic accuracy (mean accuracy: 0.898) and moderate prognostic capability (mean AUC: 0.770) for tSCI. However, the lack of standardised frameworks and external validation limits clinical applicability. Future models should integrate multimodal data, including imaging, patient characteristics, and clinician judgment, to improve utility and alignment with clinical practice.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Brain & spine
Brain & spine Surgery
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
71 days
期刊最新文献
The identification of low-pathogenic bacteria on removed spinal implants and implications for antimicrobial prophylaxis Kinematic limitations during stair ascent and descent in patients with adult spinal deformity Letter to the editor “Treatment-limiting decisions in patients with severe traumatic brain injury in the Netherlands” Lumbar disc space height in relation to neural foraminal dimensions and patient characteristics: A morphometric analysis from L1-S1 using computed tomography Advancements and emerging insights in thoracolumbar spine trauma
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1