Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39760722›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in neurology2025

Artificial intelligence and stroke imaging.

Jane Rondina, Parashkev Nachev

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

2 authors.

Jane RondinaHigh Dimensional Neurology Group, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, Russell Square House, Bloomsbury, London, UK.
Parashkev Nachev

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThough simple in its fundamental mechanism - a critical disruption of local blood supply - stroke is complicated by the intricate nature of the neural substrate, the neurovascular architecture, and their complex interactions in generating its clinical manifestations. This complexity is adequately described by high-resolution imaging with sensitivity not only to parenchymal macrostructure but also microstructure and functional tissue properties, in conjunction with detailed characterization of vascular topology and dynamics. Such descriptive richness mandates models of commensurate complexity only artificial intelligence could plausibly deliver, if we are to achieve the goal of individually precise, personalized care. RECENT

findingsAdvances in machine vision technology, especially deep learning, are delivering higher fidelity predictive, descriptive, and inferential tools, incorporating increasingly rich imaging information within ever more flexible models. Impact at the clinical front line remains modest, however, owing to the challenges of delivering models robust to the noisy, incomplete, biased, and comparatively small-scale data characteristic of real-world practice. SUMMARY: The potential benefit of introducing AI to stroke, in imaging and elsewhere, is now unquestionable, but the optimal approach - and the path to real-world application - remain unsettled. Deep generative models offer a compelling solution to current obstacles and are predicted powerfully to catalyse innovation in the field.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceNeuroimagingStrokeDeep LearningHumans

Identifiers

PMID39760722
PMCPMC11706347

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.