ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2020
Real-World Comparison of Human and Software Image Assessment in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients' Qualification for Reperfusion Treatment.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Software with artificial intelligence-derived algorithms for analysing CT brain scans in people with a suspected acute stroke: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Review
- Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in the Diagnosis and Management of Stroke: A Narrative Review of United States Food and Drug Administration-Approved Technologies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our aim was to compare human and computer accuracy in reading medical images of acute stroke patients. We analyzed data of patients who underwent assessment of Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) and CT Perfusion (CTP) via Rapid Processing of Perfusion and Diffusion (RAPID) software RAPID ASPECTS, and RAPID CTP), compared to radiologist reports and manual measurements. We compared volumes calculated by RAPID CTP software with those selected by scanner-equipped software (GE). For reference, follow-up images were manually assessed in accordance with the Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) territories retrospectively. Although exact ASPECTS score agreement between the automatic and manual methods, and between each method and follow-up, was poor, crossing of the threshold for reperfusion therapy was characterized by an 80% match. CT perfusion analyses yielded only slight agreement (kappa = 0.193) in the qualification of patients for therapy. Either automatic or manual scoring methods of non-contrast images imply similar clinical decisions in real-world circumstances. However, volume measurements performed by fully automatic and manually assisted systems are not comparable. Thresholds devised and validated for computer algorithms are not compatible with measurements performed manually using other software and should not be applied to setups other than those with which they were developed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.