Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38512017›Full record

SynthesisHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2024

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.

Marie Westwood, Bram Ramaekers, Sabine Grimm, Nigel Armstrong, Ben Wijnen, Charlotte Ahmadu, Shelley de Kock, Caro Noake, Manuela Joore

Open access · diamondAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Marie WestwoodKleijnen Systematic Reviews (KSR) Ltd, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6257-0653
Bram RamaekersDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC), Maastricht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5785-9228
Sabine GrimmKleijnen Systematic Reviews (KSR) Ltd, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2175-7999
Nigel ArmstrongKleijnen Systematic Reviews (KSR) Ltd, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7443-4798
Ben WijnenKleijnen Systematic Reviews (KSR) Ltd, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7993-1905
Charlotte AhmaduKleijnen Systematic Reviews (KSR) Ltd, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6420-9071
Shelley de KockKleijnen Systematic Reviews (KSR) Ltd, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3143-806X
Caro NoakeKleijnen Systematic Reviews (KSR) Ltd, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0329-4772
Manuela JooreDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC), Maastricht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2787-7091
Kleijnen Systematic Reviews (United Kingdom) · GBMaastricht University Medical Centre · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence-derived software technologies have been developed that are intended to facilitate the review of computed tomography brain scans in patients with suspected stroke. Objectives: To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of using artificial intelligence-derived software to support review of computed tomography brain scans in acute stroke in the National Health Service setting. Methods: Twenty-five databases were searched to July 2021. The review process included measures to minimise error and bias. Results were summarised by research question, artificial intelligence-derived software technology and study type. The health economic analysis focused on the addition of artificial intelligence-derived software-assisted review of computed tomography angiography brain scans for guiding mechanical thrombectomy treatment decisions for people with an ischaemic stroke. The de novo model (developed in R Shiny, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) consisted of a decision tree (short-term) and a state transition model (long-term) to calculate the mean expected costs and quality-adjusted life-years for people with ischaemic stroke and suspected large-vessel occlusion comparing artificial intelligence-derived software-assisted review to usual care. Results: A total of 22 studies (30 publications) were included in the review; 18/22 studies concerned artificial intelligence-derived software for the interpretation of computed tomography angiography to detect large-vessel occlusion. No study evaluated an artificial intelligence-derived software technology used as specified in the inclusion criteria for this assessment. For artificial intelligence-derived software technology alone, sensitivity and specificity estimates for proximal anterior circulation large-vessel occlusion were 95.4% (95% confidence interval 92.7% to 97.1%) and 79.4% (95% confidence interval 75.8% to 82.6%) for Rapid (iSchemaView, Menlo Park, CA, USA) computed tomography angiography, 91.2% (95% confidence interval 77.0% to 97.0%) and 85.0 (95% confidence interval 64.0% to 94.8%) for Viz LVO (Viz.ai, Inc., San Fransisco, VA, USA) large-vessel occlusion, 83.8% (95% confidence interval 77.3% to 88.7%) and 95.7% (95% confidence interval 91.0% to 98.0%) for Brainomix (Brainomix Ltd, Oxford, UK) e-computed tomography angiography and 98.1% (95% confidence interval 94.5% to 99.3%) and 98.2% (95% confidence interval 95.5% to 99.3%) for Avicenna CINA (Avicenna AI, La Ciotat, France) large-vessel occlusion, based on one study each. These studies were not considered appropriate to inform cost-effectiveness modelling but formed the basis by which the accuracy of artificial intelligence plus human reader could be elicited by expert opinion. Probabilistic analyses based on the expert elicitation to inform the sensitivity of the diagnostic pathway indicated that the addition of artificial intelligence to detect large-vessel occlusion is potentially more effective (quality-adjusted life-year gain of 0.003), more costly (increased costs of £8.61) and cost-effective for willingness-to-pay thresholds of £3380 per quality-adjusted life-year and higher. Limitations and conclusions: The available evidence is not suitable to determine the clinical effectiveness of using artificial intelligence-derived software to support the review of computed tomography brain scans in acute stroke. The economic analyses did not provide evidence to prefer the artificial intelligence-derived software strategy over current clinical practice. However, results indicated that if the addition of artificial intelligence-derived software-assisted review for guiding mechanical thrombectomy treatment decisions increased the sensitivity of the diagnostic pathway (i.e. reduced the proportion of undetected large-vessel occlusions), this may be considered cost-effective. Future work: Large, preferably multicentre, studies are needed (for all artificial intelligence-derived software technologies) that evaluate these technologies as they would be implemented in clinical practice. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021269609. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR133836) and is published in full in

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceCost-Benefit AnalysisQuality-Adjusted Life YearsStrokeTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalTomography, X-Ray ComputedAlgorithmsBrainComputed Tomography AngiographyCost-Effectiveness AnalysisHumansSoftwareARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCECOST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSISISCHEMIC STROKE DIAGNOSISLARGE VESSEL OCCLUSION DETECTIONMACHINE LEARNINGSYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Identifiers

PMID38512017
PMCPMC11017149
OpenAlexW4393097754

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.