ReviewCurrent opinion in neurology2025
Artificial intelligence and stroke imaging.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- From fragmented neurotechnologies to closed-loop brain health systems: integrating artificial intelligence, digital health, digital twins, and advanced materials for brain disorders.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Review
- Quantitative Analysis of Intracranial Atherosclerosis and Its Correlation with Ischemic Cerebrovascular Disease and Prognosis.Brain sciences · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.