Key result
Machine learning in IONM remains limited by non-surgical factors, ambiguous false positives, and inter-rater variability.
Why the study?
Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring is labor- and training-intensive with complex interpretation, yet the clinical application of machine learning to intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring remains limited.
Machine learning has the potential to improve the objectivity and reliability of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring, though significant challenges remain regarding standardization and data interpretation.
Limits adoption of machine learning in intraoperative monitoring; leaves open standardization of false-positive definitions and prospective validation studies.
Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) is being applied to a wide range of surgical fields as a diagnostic tool to protect patients from neural injuries that may occur during surgery. However, several contributing factors complicate the interpretation of IONM, and it is labor- and training-intensive. Meanwhile, machine learning (ML)-based medical research has been growing rapidly, and many studies on the clinical application of ML algorithms have been published in recent years. Despite this, the application of ML to IONM remains limited. Major challenges in applying ML to IONM include the presence of non-surgical contributing factors, ambiguity in the definition of false-positive cases, and their inter-rater variability. Nevertheless, we believe that the application of ML enables objective and reliable IONM, while overcoming the aforementioned problems that experts may encounter. Large-scale, standardized studies and technical considerations are required to overcome certain obstacles to the use of ML in IONM in the future.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Park et al. (2022) conducted a review in Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring. Machine learning was evaluated. Machine learning application in intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring remains limited by non-surgical factors, ambiguous false-positive definitions, and inter-rater variability.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: