<link rel="stylesheet" href="styles.f3b1fba60ec7970c.css">

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

dc.contributor.authorSulaimanov, Umid
dc.contributor.authorSanlier, Nafiye
dc.contributor.authorMoniri, Ariorad
dc.contributor.authorDemir, Behman
dc.contributor.authorSerikkanov, Yerkebulan
dc.contributor.authorBayramoglu, Ahmed Rasim
dc.contributor.authorAl-Jebur, Maryam Sabah
dc.contributor.authorUslu, Irem
dc.contributor.authorOzturk, Oyku
dc.contributor.authorNizzola, Mariagrazia
dc.contributor.authorOtles, Erkin
dc.contributor.authorAmmanuel, Simon Gashaw
dc.contributor.authorKeles, Abdullah
dc.contributor.authorErginoglu, Ufuk
dc.contributor.authorBaskaya, Mustafa K.
dc.date.accessioned2026-11-05T11:07:30Z
dc.date.issued2026
dc.description.abstractBackground/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.
dc.description.issue9
dc.description.pages3441
dc.description.volume15
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/jcm15093441
dc.identifier.issn2077-0383
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15093441
dc.identifier.urihttps://openaccess.acibadem.edu.tr/handle/11443/11456
dc.identifier.wosWOS:001763704900001
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherMDPI
dc.relation.hasversion10.3390/jcm15093441
dc.relation.ispartofJOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
dc.subjectartificial intelligence
dc.subjectcalibration
dc.subjectCLAIM
dc.subjectclinical translation
dc.subjectdata leakage
dc.subjectdeep learning
dc.subjectexternal validation
dc.subjectmachine learning
dc.subjectmedical imaging
dc.subjectTRIPOD-AI
dc.subjectARTIFICIAL-INTELLIGENCE
dc.subjectRADIOMICS
dc.subjectPREDICTION
dc.subjectMedicine, General & Internal
dc.subjectGeneral & Internal Medicine
dc.titleAre AI Neuroimaging Models Ready for Clinical Use? A Systematic Methodological Review
dc.typeReview
oaire.citation.editionScience Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED)
oaire.citation.issue9
oaire.citation.volume15
person.identifier.orcid0000-0002-4192-9268
person.identifier.orcid0009-0000-9668-7246
person.identifier.orcid0000-0002-4839-3347
person.identifier.ridAHI-1940-2022
person.identifier.ridGMW-6541-2022
person.identifier.ridAAA-4635-2020

Files

Collections