{
  "abstract": "Adult spinal deformity (ASD) demands precise radiographic quantification of spinopelvic parameters to guide corrective surgery. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) tools offer automated alternatives to manual measurement. This systematic review evaluates the diagnostic accuracy, failure rates, and inferred surgical planning implications of AI-based spinopelvic measurement versus manual assessment, with particular focus on postoperative and instrumented spines. This Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020-compliant systematic review searched MEDLINE (PubMed), ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar (first 200 results) through June 2026. Studies comparing AI/ML tools, including convolutional neural networks (CNNs), U-Net, Mask R-CNN, and Keypoint R-CNN, against manual clinician measurement on radiographs or EOS biplanar systems were included. Quality was assessed using QUADAS-2. Narrative synthesis was performed given heterogeneity across architectures, populations, and outcome metrics. Sixteen studies (sample sizes ranging from 21 to 1,810 patients per study) compared machine vision against manual measurement across preoperative, postoperative, and instrumented cohorts. Compared to manual measurement, automated machine vision demonstrated agreement statistically comparable to manual measurement for sagittal vertical axis (SVA) (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.99-1.00) and pelvic tilt (PT) (ICC 0.96-0.99), matching experienced clinician inter-rater reliability. For lumbar lordosis, automated systems achieved acceptable accuracy in preoperative populations (ICC 0.91-0.97) but exhibited directional biases absent in manual measurement (up to 6.31° overestimation). Thoracic kyphosis and sacral slope agreement was highly variable and dataset-dependent (ICC ranging from 0.58 to 0.97 across studies), generally among the least consistent parameters rather than uniformly weak. Unlike manual measurement, automated accuracy declined significantly in postoperative and instrumented spines. Machine vision failure rates ranged from 0% to 76.2%, versus near-zero manual failure rates. Processing speed was up to 238-fold faster than manual workflows. Automated-versus-manual discrepancies for LL and PI occasionally exceeded the 10° PI-LL surgical correction threshold used as a proxy for surgical-planning impact, since no included study measured a surgical outcome directly. Machine vision matches manual speed and accuracy preoperatively but is not yet reliable enough postoperatively to replace manual clinical assessment without standardised validation.",
  "abstract_shown": true,
  "affiliations": [
    "Neurology, Instituto de Estudios Superiores de Chiapas, Tuxtla Gutiérrez, MEX.",
    "Medicine Department, Fundación Universitaria de Ciencias de la Salud, Bogotá, COL.",
    "Neuroradiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, USA.",
    "Healthcare Management and Administration, Private Practice, Florida, USA.",
    "Tropical Medicine, Ministerio de Salud Pública, Guayaquil, ECU.",
    "Medicine, Ministerio de Salud Pública, Montecristi, ECU.",
    "General Practice, Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, MEX."
  ],
  "article_type": "review article",
  "arxiv": null,
  "author_total": 7,
  "authors": [
    {
      "affs": [
        0
      ],
      "name": "Evelyn Abril Jiménez Méndez"
    },
    {
      "affs": [
        1
      ],
      "name": "Elkin Armando Gallo Tafur"
    },
    {
      "affs": [
        2
      ],
      "name": "Rafael E Martinez Imbett"
    },
    {
      "affs": [
        3
      ],
      "name": "Edison Alejandro Hablich Navarrete"
    },
    {
      "affs": [
        4
      ],
      "name": "Luis Honorio Velez Alarcon"
    },
    {
      "affs": [
        5
      ],
      "name": "Mishell Alejandra Palacios Cedeño"
    },
    {
      "affs": [
        6
      ],
      "name": "Antonio Cueva Pérez"
    }
  ],
  "bibtex": "https://research.draconitic.com/paper/7gjf0be413v84.bib",
  "cited_by": 0,
  "doi": "10.7759/cureus.116863",
  "fulltext_url": "https://europepmc.org/articles/PMC13695552",
  "id": "7gjf0be413v84",
  "issns": [
    "2168-8184"
  ],
  "landing_url": "https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42927406",
  "language": "eng",
  "licence": "CC-BY",
  "licence_label": "CC BY",
  "licence_source": "article",
  "licence_url": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/",
  "metadata_licence": null,
  "native_subjects": [
    [
      "openalex",
      "2746|Scoliosis diagnosis and treatment"
    ]
  ],
  "openalex": "W7214180012",
  "pdf_url": "https://europepmc.org/articles/PMC13695552?pdf=render",
  "pmcid": "PMC13695552",
  "pmid": "42927406",
  "published": "2026-09-24",
  "publisher": null,
  "ris": "https://research.draconitic.com/paper/7gjf0be413v84.ris",
  "sources": [
    {
      "first_seen": "2026-10-30T12:21:18Z",
      "native_id": "MED:42927406",
      "source": "europepmc",
      "url": "https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42927406"
    }
  ],
  "subjects": [
    {
      "field": "medicine",
      "origin": "openalex:2746|Scoliosis diagnosis and treatment",
      "subfield": "surgery"
    }
  ],
  "title": "Artificial Intelligence Versus Manual Measurement of Spinopelvic Sagittal Parameters Across Preoperative, Postoperative, and Instrumented Spines: A Systematic Review of Diagnostic Accuracy, Failure Rates, and Inferred Surgical Planning Implications.",
  "title_text": "Artificial Intelligence Versus Manual Measurement of Spinopelvic Sagittal Parameters Across Preoperative, Postoperative, and Instrumented Spines: A Systematic Review of Diagnostic Accuracy, Failure Rates, and Inferred Surgical Planning Implications.",
  "type": "peer-reviewed",
  "updated_at": "2026-10-30T12:21:18Z",
  "url": "https://research.draconitic.com/paper/7gjf0be413v84",
  "venue": "Cureus",
  "versions": []
}