SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Artificial intelligence based advancements in nanomedicine for brain disorder management: an updated narrative review.

Front Med (Lausanne) · 2025-05-13

DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1599340PMID: 40432717

Open accessreview-article; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Nanomedicines are nanoscale, biocompatible materials that offer promising alternatives to conventional treatment options for brain disorders. The recent technological developments in artificial intelligence (AI), particularly machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL), are transforming the nanomedicine field by improving disease diagnosis, biomarker identification, prognostic assessment and disease monitoring, targeted drug delivery, and therapeutic intervention as well as contributing to computational and methodological developments. These advancements can be achieved by analysis of large clinical datasets and facilitating the design and optimization of nanomaterials for in vivo testing. Such advancement offers exciting possibilities for the improvement in the management of brain disorders, including brain cancer, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and multiple sclerosis, where early diagnosis, targeted delivery, and effective treatment strategies remain a great challenge. This review article provides an overview of recent advances in AI-based nanomedicine development to accelerate effective and quick diagnosis, biomarker identification, prognosis, drug delivery, methodological advancement and patient-specific therapies for managing brain disorders.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.