ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2024
Compare deep learning model and conventional logistic regression model for the identification of unstable saccular intracranial aneurysms in computed tomography angiography.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic Review of Radiomics and Artificial Intelligence in Intracranial Aneurysm Management.Journal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of NeuroimagingPooled it
- Multicenter-derived machine learning model for individualized rupture-risk prediction in intracranial aneurysms: study protocol and preliminary validation.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
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
Background: It is crucial to distinguish unstable from stable intracranial aneurysms (IAs) as early as possible to derive optimal clinical decision-making for further treatment or follow-up. The aim of this study was to investigate the value of a deep learning model (DLM) in identifying unstable IAs from computed tomography angiography (CTA) images and to compare its discriminatory ability with that of a conventional logistic regression model (LRM). Methods: From August 2011 to May 2021, a total of 1,049 patients with 681 unstable IAs and 556 stable IAs were retrospectively analyzed. IAs were randomly divided into training (64%), internal validation (16%), and test sets (20%). Convolutional neural network (CNN) analysis and conventional logistic regression (LR) were used to predict which IAs were unstable. The area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were calculated to evaluate the discriminating ability of the models. One hundred and ninety-seven patients with 229 IAs from Banan Hospital were used for external validation sets. Results: The conventional LRM showed 11 unstable risk factors, including clinical and IA characteristics. The LRM had an AUC of 0.963 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.941-0.986], a sensitivity, specificity and accuracy on the external validation set of 0.922, 0.906, and 0.913, respectively, in predicting unstable IAs. In predicting unstable IAs, the DLM had an AUC of 0.771 (95% CI: 0.582-0.960), a sensitivity, specificity and accuracy on the external validation set of 0.694, 0.929, and 0.782, respectively. Conclusions: The CNN-based DLM applied to CTA images did not outperform the conventional LRM in predicting unstable IAs. The patient clinical and IA morphological parameters remain critical factors for ensuring IA stability. Further studies are needed to enhance the diagnostic accuracy.
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.