SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025
Predictive power of artificial intelligence for malignant cerebral edema in stroke patients: a CT-based systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence and diagnostic performance.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Global collaboration and innovation in malignant cerebral edema research: a bibliometric perspective.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Pooled it
- From Lesion to Decision: AI for ARIA Detection and Predictive Imaging in Alzheimer's Disease.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Infectious Disease Diagnostic Technologies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Contrast extravasation on Dyna-CT as a predictor of malignant brain edema after mechanical thrombectomy for acute anterior circulation large vessel occlusion.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Malignant cerebral edema (MCE) is a severe complication of acute ischemic stroke, with high mortality rates. Early and accurate prediction of MCE is critical for initiating timely interventions such as decompressive hemicraniectomy. Artificial intelligence (AI) and radiomics have emerged as promising tools for predicting MCE, offering the potential to transform reactive stroke management into proactive care. However, variability in methodologies and inconsistent reporting limits the widespread adoption of these technologies. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus identified studies reporting on the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) of AI models in MCE prediction. Data were synthesized using random-effects meta-analyses. Subgroup analyses explored the impact of study design, machine learning input type, and other key factors on diagnostic accuracy. Publication bias was assessed using Egger's test and funnel plot analyses. Data from ten studies encompassing 1,594 unique stroke patients were included in the analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of AI models for predicting MCE were 81.1% (95% CI: 73.0-87.2%) and 92.6% (95% CI: 91.2-93.9%), respectively, with an AUC of 0.939. The diagnostic odds ratio was 43.73 (95% CI: 24.78-77.15), demonstrating excellent discriminative ability. Subgroup analyses revealed higher sensitivity and specificity in prospective studies (92.0% and 93.3%) compared to retrospective studies (76.1% and 91.4%). Radiomics-based models showed slightly higher sensitivity (84.2%) compared to non-radiomics models (80.4%), though both input types achieved comparable specificity. Interestingly, patients undergoing revascularization had a higher prevalence of MCE, likely due to their more severe initial presentations. Minimal heterogeneity was observed in specificity across studies, while publication bias was noted for sensitivity estimates. AI models show excellent diagnostic performance for predicting malignant cerebral edema (MCE), offering high sensitivity and specificity. Prospective studies, radiomics integration, and multi-center collaborations enhance their accuracy. However, external validation and standardized methodologies are needed to ensure broader clinical adoption and improve outcomes for stroke patients at risk of MCE. Clinical trial number Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40128510What 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.