ArticleFrontiers in neurology2022
Artificial intelligence for early stroke diagnosis in acute vestibular syndrome.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Accuracy of video head impulse test in stroke diagnosis during acute vestibular syndrome: a systematic review with meta-analysis.Journal of neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Redefining Stroke Care with Artificial Intelligence: Recent Advances.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2026Review
- Accuracy of First-Line Tests for Posterior Circulation Stroke in the Emergency Department: A Scoping Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Prospective quantitative evaluation of gait and stance in patients with acute vertigo and dizziness.Journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Separation of stroke from vestibular neuritis using the video head impulse test: machine learning models versus expert clinicians.Journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Improving the Diagnostic Workup of Vertigo: A Multidisciplinary Review.Spartan medical research journal · 2025Review
- Current insights on predicting vestibular diseases using machine learning.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2025Review
- Current understanding of stroke and stroke mimics in adolescents and young adults: a narrative review.International journal of emergency medicine · 2024Review
- Application of a Video Head Impulse Test in the Diagnosis of Vestibular Neuritis.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Video head impulse test in stroke: a review of published studies.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Review
- Neurological update: neuro-otology 2023.Journal of neurology · 2023Article
- Article
- Detecting simulated skew deviation using a smartphone eye-tracking application (EyePhone): a feasibility study.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Measuring the Vestibular-Ocular-Reflex (VOR) gains with the video head impulse test (vHIT) allows for accurate discrimination between peripheral and central causes of acute vestibular syndrome (AVS). In this study, we sought to investigate whether the accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) based vestibular stroke classification applied in unprocessed vHIT data is comparable to VOR gain classification. Methods: We performed a prospective study from July 2015 until April 2020 on all patients presenting at the emergency department (ED) with signs of an AVS. The patients underwent vHIT followed by a delayed MRI, which served as a gold standard for stroke confirmation. The MRI ground truth labels were then applied to train a recurrent neural network (long short-term memory architecture) that used eye- and head velocity time series extracted from the vHIT examinations. Results: We assessed 57 AVS patients, 39 acute unilateral vestibulopathy patients (AUVP) and 18 stroke patients. The overall sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for detecting stroke with a VOR gain cut-off of 0.57 was 88.8, 92.3, and 91.2%, respectively. The trained neural network was able to classify strokes with a sensitivity of 87.7%, a specificity of 88.4%, and an accuracy of 87.9% based on the unprocessed vHIT data. The accuracy of these two methods was not significantly different ( Conclusion: AI can accurately diagnose a vestibular stroke by using unprocessed vHIT time series. The quantification of eye- and head movements with the use of machine learning and AI can serve in the future for an automated diagnosis in ED patients with acute dizziness. The application of different neural network architectures can potentially further improve performance and enable direct inference from raw video recordings.
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.