ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2024
Deep learning-assisted diagnosis of large vessel occlusion in acute ischemic stroke based on four-dimensional computed tomography angiography.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- AGTS-Net: Anatomically Guided Two-Stage Network for Actionable Stroke Classification in Complete NCCT Studies.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Prediction of prognosis in acute ischemic stroke after mechanical thrombectomy based on multimodal MRI radiomics and deep learning.Frontiers in neurology · 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
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To develop deep learning models based on four-dimensional computed tomography angiography (4D-CTA) images for automatic detection of large vessel occlusion (LVO) in the anterior circulation that cause acute ischemic stroke. Methods: This retrospective study included 104 LVO patients and 105 non-LVO patients for deep learning models development. Another 30 LVO patients and 31 non-LVO patients formed the time-independent validation set. Four phases of 4D-CTA (arterial phase P1, arterial-venous phase P2, venous phase P3 and late venous phase P4) were arranged and combined and two input methods was used: combined input and superimposed input. Totally 26 models were constructed using a modified HRNet network. Assessment metrics included the areas under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and F1 score. Kappa analysis was performed to assess inter-rater agreement between the best model and radiologists of different seniority. Results: The P1 + P2 model (combined input) had the best diagnostic performance. In the internal validation set, the AUC was 0.975 (95%CI: 0.878-0.999), accuracy was 0.911, sensitivity was 0.889, specificity was 0.944, and the F1 score was 0.909. In the time-independent validation set, the model demonstrated consistently high performance with an AUC of 0.942 (95%CI: 0.851-0.986), accuracy of 0.902, sensitivity of 0.867, specificity of 0.935, and an F1 score of 0.901. The best model showed strong consistency with the diagnostic efficacy of three radiologists of different seniority (k = 0.84, 0.80, 0.70, respectively). Conclusion: The deep learning model, using combined arterial and arterial-venous phase, was highly effective in detecting LVO, alerting radiologists to speed up the diagnosis.
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.