ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2024
Streamlining Acute Abdominal Aortic Dissection Management-An AI-based CT Imaging Workflow.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- An LLM-enhanced AI agent for rapid diagnosis of acute aortic dissection in multi-center settings.iScience · 2026Article
- Multimodal imaging of acquired aortic diseases: clinical efficacy, comparative analysis, and future perspectives.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Review
- From promise to practice: a scoping review of AI applications in abdominal radiology.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Performance of image-based deep learning models for aortic dissection segmentation and diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Comparison and analysis of the diagnostic value of color doppler ultrasound and CT for abdominal aortic dissection aneurysm.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2025Article
- Automated AI detection of thoracic aortic dissection on CT imaging.European radiology experimental · 2025Article
- The Role of Biomarkers and Clinical Prediction Tools in the Diagnosis of Acute Aortic Syndromes: A Literature-Based Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Multi-Stage Cascaded Deep Learning-Based Model for Acute Aortic Syndrome Detection: A Multisite Validation Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Automated Detection and Differentiation of Stanford Type A and Type B Aortic Dissections in CTA Scans Using Deep Learning.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Life-threatening acute aortic dissection (AD) demands timely diagnosis for effective intervention. To streamline intrahospital workflows, automated detection of AD in abdominal computed tomography (CT) scans seems useful to assist humans. We aimed at creating a robust convolutional neural network (CNN)-based pipeline capable of real-time screening for signs of abdominal AD in CT. In this retrospective study, abdominal CT data from AD patients presenting with AD and from non-AD patients were collected (n 195, AD cases 94, mean age 65.9 years, female ratio 35.8%). A CNN-based algorithm was developed with the goal of enabling a robust, automated, and highly sensitive detection of abdominal AD. Two sets from internal (n = 32, AD cases 16) and external sources (n = 1189, AD cases 100) were procured for validation. The abdominal region was extracted, followed by the automatic isolation of the aorta region of interest (ROI) and highlighting of the membrane via edge extraction, followed by classification of the aortic ROI as dissected/healthy. A fivefold cross-validation was employed on the internal set, and an ensemble of the 5 trained models was used to predict the internal and external validation set. Evaluation metrics included receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and balanced accuracy. The AUC, balanced accuracy, and sensitivity scores of the internal dataset were 0.932 (CI 0.891-0.963), 0.860, and 0.885, respectively. For the internal validation dataset, the AUC, balanced accuracy, and sensitivity scores were 0.887 (CI 0.732-0.988), 0.781, and 0.875, respectively. Furthermore, for the external validation dataset, AUC, balanced accuracy, and sensitivity scores were 0.993 (CI 0.918-0.994), 0.933, and 1.000, respectively. The proposed automated pipeline could assist humans in expediting acute aortic dissection management when integrated into clinical workflows.
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.