PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 6, 2026Journal of Clinical Medicine2 citationsOpen Access

Are AI Neuroimaging Models Ready for Clinical Use? A Systematic Methodological Review

View Full Paper
USUmid SulaimanovNSNafiye SanlierAMAriorad Moniri

Key Points

  • To assess the methodological robustness of AI imaging studies relevant to neurosurgery.
  • Systematic review following PRISMA guidelines
  • PubMed search for studies published in 2025
  • Evaluation of machine learning and deep learning in MRI/CT
  • Data extraction on validation strategy, data leakage risk, and adherence rules
  • Risk of bias assessment using PROBAST+AI
  • Out of 1776 screened records, 91 studies met inclusion criteria
  • China contributed the most (54.9%) with oncology as the leading application (37.4%)
  • MRI was the predominant imaging modality (67.0%)
  • External validation was reported in 75.8% of studies
  • 93.4% had low data leakage risk, but only 18.7% used human comparators.

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Artificial intelligence (AI) has rapidly expanded across medical imaging with proposed applications in diagnosis, prognostication, and surgical planning. Concerns remain regarding methodological robustness and clinical readiness for many published models. This systematic review aimed to conduct a methodological audit of AI imaging studies relevant to contemporary neurosurgical practice—including intracranial, cerebrovascular, spinal, and connectomics-based applications—published in 2025. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines and PROSPERO registration (CRD420261284068), PubMed was searched for studies published in 2025 evaluating machine learning or deep learning applications in MRI- or CT-based imaging. Three reviewers independently extracted data on validation strategy, data leakage risk, human comparator use, calibration reporting, and CLAIM/TRIPOD-AI adherence. Risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST+AI. Results: Of 1776 screened records, 91 studies met the inclusion criteria. China led contributions (54.9%), oncology was the most common domain (37.4%), and MRI was the predominant modality (67.0%). External validation was reported in 75.8% of studies, and 66.0% used multicenter cohorts. Data leakage risk was low in 93.4%. However, only 18.7% included human comparators, calibration was reported in 30.8%, and none achieved full CLAIM/TRIPOD-AI compliance. Conclusions: AI imaging studies published in 2025 demonstrate encouraging progress in multicenter design and external validation. However, persistent gaps in human benchmarking, calibration, and reporting suggest further methodological development is needed.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Sulaimanov et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69faa28f04f884e66b5332f1https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15093441
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Bibliometric analysis of artificial intelligence in healthcare research: Trends and future directions2024 · 65 citations
  2. 2Multimodal deep learning improves recurrence risk prediction in pediatric low-grade gliomas2024 · 32 citations
  3. 3mpMRI‐based MGMT methylation status prediction for glioblastoma through off‐the‐shelf deep features: A multi‐dataset feasibility study2025 · 3 citations
  4. 4Combinations of Clinical Factors, CT Signs, and Radiomics for Differentiating High-Density Areas after Mechanical Thrombectomy in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke2024 · 5 citations
  5. 5TRIPOD+AI statement: updated guidance for reporting clinical prediction models that use regression or machine learning methods2024 · 3,246 citations