ArticleNeuroradiology2024
Impact of an AI software on the diagnostic performance and reading time for the detection of cerebral aneurysms on time of flight MR-angiography.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence for Cerebral Aneurysm Management: Integrating Imaging, Hemodynamics, and Clinical Decision Support.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Review
- Machine learning in neuroradiology: Recent developments and applications.World journal of radiology · 2026Review
- Multi-centric AI Model for Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysm Detection and Volumetric Segmentation in 3D TOF-MRI.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Automation bias in AI-assisted detection of cerebral aneurysms on time-of-flight MR angiography.La Radiologia medica · 2025Article
- Spectra of intracranial diseases in Chinese military pilots (cadets) unqualified for transfer to pilot modified high performance aircraft.World journal of radiology · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the impact of an AI-based software trained to detect cerebral aneurysms on TOF-MRA on the diagnostic performance and reading times across readers with varying experience levels.
methodsOne hundred eighty-six MRI studies were reviewed by six readers to detect cerebral aneurysms. Initially, readings were assisted by the CNN-based software mdbrain. After 6 weeks, a second reading was conducted without software assistance. The results were compared to the consensus reading of two neuroradiological specialists and sensitivity (lesion and patient level), specificity (patient level), and false positives per case were calculated for the group of all readers, for the subgroup of physicians, and for each individual reader. Also, reading times for each reader were measured.
resultsThe dataset contained 54 aneurysms. The readers had no experience (three medical students), 2 years experience (resident in neuroradiology), 6 years experience (radiologist), and 12 years (neuroradiologist). Significant improvements of overall specificity and the overall number of false positives per case were observed in the reading with AI support. For the physicians, we found significant improvements of sensitivity on lesion and patient level and false positives per case. Four readers experienced reduced reading times with the software, while two encountered increased times.
conclusionIn the reading with the AI-based software, we observed significant improvements in terms of specificity and false positives per case for the group of all readers and significant improvements of sensitivity and false positives per case for the physicians. Further studies are needed to investigate the effects of the AI-based software in a prospective setting.
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.