ArticleEuropean radiology2024
Automated ASPECTS calculation may equal the performance of experienced clinicians: a machine learning study based on a large cohort.
Article in European radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Refined AI-ASPECTS with modified atlas and lesion-load thresholds: advancing acute ischemic stroke imaging and prognostic prediction.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Automated ASPECTS Segmentation and Scoring Tool: a Method Tailored for a Colombian Telestroke Network.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) is a semi-quantitative method to evaluate the severity of early ischemic change on non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). In this work, we propose an automated ASPECTS method based on large cohort of data and machine learning.
methodsFor this study, we collected 3626 NCCT cases from multiple centers and annotated directly on this dataset by neurologists. Based on image analysis and machine learning methods, we constructed a two-stage machine learning model. The validity and reliability of this automated ASPECTS method were tested on an independent external validation set of 300 cases. Statistical analyses on the total ASPECTS, dichotomized ASPECTS, and region-level ASPECTS were presented.
resultsOn an independent external validation set of 300 cases, for the total ASPECTS results, the intraclass correlation coefficient between automated ASPECTS and expert-rated was 0.842. The agreement between ASPECTS threshold of ≥ 6 versus < 6 using a dichotomized method was moderate (κ = 0.438, 0.391-0.477), and the detection rate (sensitivity) was 86.5% for patients with ASPECTS threshold of ≥ 6. Compared with the results of previous studies, our method achieved a slight lead in sensitivity (67.8%) and AUC (0.845), with comparable accuracy (78.9%) and specificity (81.2%).
conclusionThe proposed automated ASPECTS method driven by a large cohort of NCCT images performed equally well compared with expert-rated ASPECTS. This work further demonstrates the validity and reliability of automated ASPECTS evaluation method. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The automated ASPECTS method proposed by this study may help AIS patients to receive rapid intervention, but should not be used as a stand-alone diagnostic basis. KEY POINTS: NCCT-based manual ASPECTS scores were poorly consistent. Machine learning can automate the ASPECTS scoring process. Machine learning model design based on large cohort data can effectively improve the consistency of ASPECTS scores.
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.