ReviewInsights into imaging2024
Artificial intelligence for MRI stroke detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Insights into imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Large Language Model Performance on the United Kingdom Neurology Specialty Certificate Examination.Cureus · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence (AI)-powered diagnostic support for stroke via Telegram bot: preliminary findings.BMC neurology · 2026Article
- Cerebral Infarction: Epidemiology, Classification, Mechanisms, Diagnosis, and Management.MedComm · 2026Review
- Added Value of Thin-Section Coronal DWI for Lesion Visualization in Acute Brainstem Infarction: A Retrospective Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Integration of imaging and clinical biomarkers for cerebral infarction diagnosis via NeuroFusionNet.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- Motion artifacts and image quality in stroke MRI: associated factors and impact on AI and human diagnostic accuracy.European radiology · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence and robotic surgery in clinical medicine: progress, challenges, and future directions.Future science OA · 2025Review
- Revolutionizing emergency care: an overview of the transformative role of artificial intelligence in diagnosis, triage, and patient management.International journal of emergency medicine · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Stroke Care: A Narrative Review of Diagnostic, Predictive, and Workflow Applications.Cureus · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence-assisted detection of challenging ischemic stroke on diffusion-weighted imaging: a reader study.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the stroke detection performance of artificial intelligence (AI) in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and additionally to identify reporting insufficiencies.
methodsPRISMA guidelines were followed. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, and IEEE Xplore were searched for studies utilising MRI and AI for stroke detection. The protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021289748). Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were the primary outcomes. Only studies using MRI in adults were included. The intervention was AI for stroke detection with ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke in separate categories. Any manual labelling was used as a comparator. A modified QUADAS-2 tool was used for bias assessment. The minimum information about clinical artificial intelligence modelling (MI-CLAIM) checklist was used to assess reporting insufficiencies. Meta-analyses were performed for sensitivity, specificity, and hierarchical summary ROC (HSROC) on low risk of bias studies.
resultsThirty-three studies were eligible for inclusion. Fifteen studies had a low risk of bias. Low-risk studies were better for reporting MI-CLAIM items. Only one study examined a CE-approved AI algorithm. Forest plots revealed detection sensitivity and specificity of 93% and 93% with identical performance in the HSROC analysis and positive and negative likelihood ratios of 12.6 and 0.079.
conclusionCurrent AI technology can detect ischaemic stroke in MRI. There is a need for further validation of haemorrhagic detection. The clinical usability of AI stroke detection in MRI is yet to be investigated. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This first meta-analysis concludes that AI, utilising diffusion-weighted MRI sequences, can accurately aid the detection of ischaemic brain lesions and its clinical utility is ready to be uncovered in clinical trials. KEY POINTS: There is a growing interest in AI solutions for detection aid. The performance is unknown for MRI stroke assessment. AI detection sensitivity and specificity were 93% and 93% for ischaemic lesions. There is limited evidence for the detection of patients with haemorrhagic lesions. AI can accurately detect patients with ischaemic stroke in MRI.
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.