Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38913106›Full record

ReviewInsights into imaging2024

Artificial intelligence for MRI stroke detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jonas Asgaard Bojsen, Mohammad Talal Elhakim, Ole Graumann, David Gaist, Mads Nielsen, Frederik Severin Gråe Harbo, Christian Hedeager Krag, Malini Vendela Sagar, Christina Kruuse, Mikael Ploug Boesen and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Jonas Asgaard BojsenResearch and Innovation Unit of Radiology, Odense University Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. jabo@rsyd.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1603-462X
Mohammad Talal ElhakimResearch and Innovation Unit of Radiology, Odense University Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Ole GraumannResearch Unit of Radiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
David GaistResearch Unit for Neurology, Odense University Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Mads NielsenDepartment of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Frederik Severin Gråe HarboResearch and Innovation Unit of Radiology, Odense University Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Christian Hedeager KragRadiological AI Test Center, Copenhagen University Hospital-Bispebjerg, Frederiksberg, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Malini Vendela SagarInstitute of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Christina KruuseInstitute of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Mikael Ploug BoesenRadiological AI Test Center, Copenhagen University Hospital-Bispebjerg, Frederiksberg, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Benjamin Schnack Brandt RasmussenResearch and Innovation Unit of Radiology, Odense University Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial intelligenceMagnetic resonance imagingMeta-analysisStrokeSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38913106
PMCPMC11196541

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.