ReviewBrain sciences2024
Current Stroke Solutions Using Artificial Intelligence: A Review of the Literature.
Review in Brain sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance of Deep Learning Reconstruction for Detection of Early Ischemic Changes in NCCT: Comparison with ASIR-V in Acute Stroke.Clinical neuroradiology · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Ischemic Stroke Lesion Segmentation: A Narrative Review of Deep Learning Methods, Clinical Utility, and Future Directions.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Review
- Machine learning versus deep learning for screening ischemic stroke among asymptomatic population.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Beyond Conventional Imaging: From Time-Based to Data-Driven Decision-Making in Acute Ischemic Stroke.Journal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis · 2026Review
- Current State of the Clinical Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Stroke: A Literature Review.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- Integration of imaging and clinical biomarkers for cerebral infarction diagnosis via NeuroFusionNet.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- Telestroke systems and thrombolysis decisions: diagnostic uncertainty, treatment thresholds, and stroke mimics.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Review
- The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Stroke Imaging in Emergency Settings: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Quantitative Analysis of Intracranial Atherosclerosis and Its Correlation with Ischemic Cerebrovascular Disease and Prognosis.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Stroke Care: A Narrative Review of Diagnostic, Predictive, and Workflow Applications.Cureus · 2025Review
- AI-Assisted Edema Map Optimization Improves Infarction Detection in Twin-Spiral Dual-Energy CT.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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a transformative tool for enhancing stroke diagnosis, aiding treatment decision making, and improving overall patient care. Leading AI-driven platforms such as RapidAI, Brainomix
methodsFollowing the PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive systematic review was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus. Characteristic descriptive measures were gathered as appropriate from all included studies, including the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and comparison of the available tools.
resultsA total of 31 studies were included, of which 29 studies focused on detecting acute ischemic stroke (AIS) or large vessel occlusions (LVOs), and 2 studies focused on hemorrhagic strokes. The four main tools used were Viz.ai, RapidAI, Brainomix
conclusionsAI tools in the treatment of stroke have demonstrated usefulness for diagnosing different stroke types, providing high levels of accuracy and helping to make quicker and more precise clinical judgments.
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.