ArticleScientific reports2023
Non-inferiority of deep learning ischemic stroke segmentation on non-contrast CT within 16-hours compared to expert neuroradiologists.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial Intelligence in Ischemic Stroke Lesion Segmentation: A Narrative Review of Deep Learning Methods, Clinical Utility, and Future Directions.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Review
- Estimation of Acute Infarct Core and Hypoperfused Region from Baseline Noncontrast Computed Tomography and Computed Tomography Angiography Scans of Patients with Ischemic Stroke.Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Article
- Dual Energy CT for Deep Learning-Based Segmentation and Volumetric Estimation of Early Ischemic Infarcts.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
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
We determined if a convolutional neural network (CNN) deep learning model can accurately segment acute ischemic changes on non-contrast CT compared to neuroradiologists. Non-contrast CT (NCCT) examinations from 232 acute ischemic stroke patients who were enrolled in the DEFUSE 3 trial were included in this study. Three experienced neuroradiologists independently segmented hypodensity that reflected the ischemic core on each scan. The neuroradiologist with the most experience (expert A) served as the ground truth for deep learning model training. Two additional neuroradiologists' (experts B and C) segmentations were used for data testing. The 232 studies were randomly split into training and test sets. The training set was further randomly divided into 5 folds with training and validation sets. A 3-dimensional CNN architecture was trained and optimized to predict the segmentations of expert A from NCCT. The performance of the model was assessed using a set of volume, overlap, and distance metrics using non-inferiority thresholds of 20%, 3 ml, and 3 mm, respectively. The optimized model trained on expert A was compared to test experts B and C. We used a one-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test to test for the non-inferiority of the model-expert compared to the inter-expert agreement. The final model performance for the ischemic core segmentation task reached a performance of 0.46 ± 0.09 Surface Dice at Tolerance 5mm and 0.47 ± 0.13 Dice when trained on expert A. Compared to the two test neuroradiologists the model-expert agreement was non-inferior to the inter-expert agreement, [Formula: see text]. The before, CNN accurately delineates the hypodense ischemic core on NCCT in acute ischemic stroke patients with an accuracy comparable to neuroradiologists.
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.