SynthesisNeuroradiology2025
Detection of large vessel occlusion using artificial intelligence tools: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact of Artificial Intelligence-Based Triage on Stroke Workflow Metrics: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence in neurovascular surgery: advancing diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeLarge vessel occlusion (LVO) accounts for a third of all ischemic strokes. Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown good accuracy in identifying LVOs on computed tomography angiograms (CTA). We sought to analyze whether AI-adjudicated CTA improves workflow times and clinical outcomes in patients with confirmed LVOs. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for studies comparing initial radiological assessment assisted by AI softwares versus standard assessment of patients with acute LVO strokes. Results were pooled using a random-effects model as mean differences for continuous outcomes or odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous outcomes, along with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
resultsWe included 9 studies comprising 1,270 patients, of whom 671 (52.8%) had AI-assisted radiological assessment. AI consistently improved treatment times when compared to standard assessment, as evidenced by a mean reduction of 20.55 minutes in door-to-groin time (95% CI -36.69 to -4.42 minutes; p<0.01) and a reduction of 14.99 minutes in CTA to reperfusion (95% CI -28.45 to -1.53 minutes; p=0.03). Functional independence, defined as a modified Rankin scale 0-2, occurred at similar rates in the AI-supported group and with the standard workflow (OR 1.27; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.76; p=0.14), as did mortality (OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.27 to 1.88; p=0.49).
conclusionsThe incorporation of AI softwares for LVO detection in acute ischemic stroke enhanced workflow efficiency and was associated with decreased time to treatment. However, AI did not improve clinical outcomes as compared with standard assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40736601What 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.