ArticleChinese neurosurgical journal2021
Performance of automated CT ASPECTS in comparison to physicians at different levels on evaluating acute ischemic stroke at a single institution in China.
Article in Chinese neurosurgical journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
- Visual Alberta stroke program early computed tomography score versus RAPID-AI perfusion in predicting outcome after late-window thrombectomy.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2025Article
- Deep Learning-Based ASPECTS Algorithm Enhances Reader Performance and Reduces Interpretation Time.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2025Article
- Validation of two automated ASPECTS software on non-contrast computed tomography scans of patients with acute ischemic stroke.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
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
Abstract
backgroundOur aim was to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the automated computer-based Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (e-ASPECTS) for acute stroke patients and compare the result with physicians at different levels.
methodsIn our center, e-ASPECTS and 9 physicians at different levels retrospectively and blindly assessed baseline computed tomography (CT) images of 55 patients. Sensitivity, specificity, receiver-operating characteristic curves, Bland-Altman plots with mean score error, and Matthews correlation coefficients were calculated. Comparisons were made between the scores by physicians and e-ASPECTS with diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) being the ground truth. Two methods for clustered data were used to estimate sensitivity and specificity in the region-based analysis.
resultsIn total, 1100 (55 patients × 20 regions per patient) ASPECTS regions were scored. In the region-based analysis, sensitivity of e-ASPECTS was better than junior doctors and residents (0.576 vs 0.165 and 0.111, p < 0.05) but inferior to senior doctors (0.576 vs 0.617). Specificity was lower than junior doctors and residents (0.883 vs 0.971 and 0.914) but higher than senior doctors (0.883 vs 0.809, p < 0.05). E-ASPECTS had the best Matthews correlation coefficient of 0.529, compared to senior doctors, junior doctors, and residents (0.463, 0.251, and 0.087, respectively).
conclusionse-ASPECTS showed a similar performance to that of senior physicians in the assessment of brain CT of acute ischemic stroke patients with the Alberta Stroke Program Early CT score method.
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.