ArticleScientific reports2025
Validation of a novel CT perfusion software compared to RAPID in stroke patients receiving endovascular therapy.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Understanding CT Perfusion in Acute Ischemic Stroke: How Algorithms Shape Perfusion Maps.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The Role of CT Perfusion in the Evaluation and Management of Acute Ischemic Stroke-A Systematic Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Advances in Collateral Neuroimaging for Acute Ischemic Stroke: Redefining Time and Tissue Windows in the Reperfusion Era.Journal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of NeuroimagingReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate estimate of ischemic core volume (ICV) and penumbra volume (PV) is important in decision-making for endovascular therapies (EVT) and predicting the patient's clinical outcome. In this study, we compared the performance of a novel automated CT perfusion software UGuard and the Rapid Processing of Perfusion and Diffusion (RAPID). UGuard and RAPID had strong agreement with regard to ICV (ICC 0.92, 95% CI 0.89 - 0.94) and PV (ICC 0.8, 95% CI 0.73 - 0.85) measurements. ICVs measured by UGuard or RAPID were similar in predicting favorable outcome (AUC 0.72 vs. 0.70, P = 0.43), with UGuard measurements having higher specificity. After adjusting for significant clinical covariates, the predictive performance of favorable outcome was excellent for each of the six models incorporating ICV and PV, and the model which incorporated ICV and PV measured by UGuard software package showed the best predictive performance. We concluded that the ICV and PV of CT perfusion images measured by UGuard software package, as well as the capacity to predict favorable outcome of patients following EVT, were comparable to RAPID.
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.