ArticleNeuroradiology2025
Evaluating a clinically available artificial intelligence model for intracranial aneurysm detection: a multi-reader study and algorithmic audit.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multi-center and multi-reader comparison of abdominopelvic non-contrast and contrast-enhanced CT in the postoperative surveillance of gastrointestinal stromal tumors.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Methodological Challenges in Deep Learning-Based Detection of Intracranial Aneurysms: A Scoping Review.Neurointervention · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to validate a clinically available artificial intelligence (AI) model to assist general radiologists in the detection of intracranial aneurysm (IA) in a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) study, and to explore its performance in routine clinical settings.
methodsTwo distinct cohorts of head CT angiography (CTA) data were assembled to validate an AI model. Cohort 1, comprising gold-standard consecutive CTA cases, was used in an MRMC study involving six board-certified general radiologists. Cohort 2, representing clinical CTA cases, was used to simulate a routine clinical setting. Following these evaluations, an algorithmic audit was conducted to identify any unusual or unexpected behaviors exhibited by the model.
resultsCohort 1 consisted of 131 CTA cases, while Cohort 2 included 515 CTA cases. In the MRMC study, the AI-assisted strategy demonstrated a significant improvement in aneurysm diagnostic performance, with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve increasing from 0.815 (95%CI: 0.754-0.875) to 0.875 (95%CI: 0.831-0.921; p = 0.008). In the AI-based first-reader study, 60.4% of the CTA cases were identified as negative by the AI, with a high negative predictive value of 0.994 (95%CI: 0.977-0.999). The algorithmic audit highlighted two issues for improvement: the accurate detection of tiny aneurysms and the effective exclusion of false-positive lesions.
conclusionThis study highlights the clinical utility of a high-performance AI model in detecting IAs, significantly improving general radiologists' diagnostic performance with the potential to reduce their workload in routine clinical practice. The algorithmic audit offers insights to guide the development and validation of future AI models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39812775What 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.