Artificial Intelligence in Neurosurgery: A State-of-the-Art Review from Past to Future
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, there has been a significant surge in discussions surrounding artificial intelligence (AI), along with a corresponding increase in its practical applications in various facets of everyday life, including the medical industry. Notably, even in the highly specialized realm of neurosurgery, AI has been utilized for differential diagnosis, pre-operative evaluation, and improving surgical precision. Many of these applications have begun to mitigate risks of intraoperative and postoperative complications and post-operative care. This article aims to present an overview of the principal published papers on the significant themes of tumor, spine, epilepsy, and vascular issues, wherein AI has been applied to assess its potential applications within neurosurgery. The method involved identifying high-cited seminal papers using PubMed and Google Scholar, conducting a comprehensive review of various study types, and summarizing machine learning applications to enhance understanding among clinicians for future utilization. Recent studies demonstrate that machine learning (ML) holds significant potential in neuro-oncological care, spine surgery, epilepsy management, and other neurosurgical applications. ML techniques have proven effective in tumor identification, surgical outcomes prediction, seizure outcome prediction, aneurysm prediction, and more, highlighting its broad impact and potential in improving patient management and outcomes in neurosurgery. This review will encompass the current state of research, as well as predictions for the future of AI within neurosurgery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".