Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41049459›Full record

ArticleASIDE internal medicine2025

Human Readers versus AI-Based Systems in ASPECTS Scoring for Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Region-Specific Guidance.

Ahmed Y Azzam, Ibrahim Hadadi, Leen M Al-Shahrani, Ummkulthum A Shanqeeti, Noor A Alqurqush, Mohammed A Alsehli, Rudaynah S Alali, Rahaf S Tammar, Mahmoud M Morsy, Muhammed Amir Essibayi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ASIDE internal medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Ahmed Y AzzamDirector of Clinical Research and Clinical Artificial Intelligence, American Society for Inclusion, Diversity, and Health Equity (ASIDE), Delaware, USA.
Ibrahim HadadiDepartment of Radiological Sciences, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia.
Leen M Al-ShahraniDepartment of Radiological Sciences, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia.
Ummkulthum A ShanqeetiCollege of Medicine, Taibah University, Madinah, Saudi Arabia.
Noor A AlqurqushCollege of Medicine, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia.
Mohammed A AlsehliCollege of Medicine, Ummul Al Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia.
Rudaynah S AlaliCollege of Medicine, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia.
Rahaf S TammarClinical Research Fellow, American Society for Inclusion, Diversity, and Health Equity (ASIDE), Delaware, USA.
Mahmoud M MorsyClinical Research Fellow, American Society for Inclusion, Diversity, and Health Equity (ASIDE), Delaware, USA.
Muhammed Amir EssibayiDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA.

Funding

Einstein-Montefiore Clinical and Translational Science Award HubUM1TR004400 · NCATS · ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE · PI Jessica Kahn, Mimi Y Kim · 2023 to 2026
$17.3M
NCATS NIH HHS UM1 TR004400
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) is widely used to evaluate early ischemic changes and guide thrombectomy decisions in acute stroke patients. However, significant interobserver variability in manual ASPECTS assessment presents a challenge. Recent advances in artificial intelligence have enabled the development of automated ASPECTS scoring systems; however, their comparative performance against expert interpretation remains insufficiently studied. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. We searched multiple scientific databases for studies comparing automated and manual ASPECTS on Non-Contrast Computed Tomography (NCCT). Interobserver reliability was assessed using pooled interclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Subgroup analyses were made using software types, reference standards, time windows, and computed tomography-based factors. Results: Eleven studies with a total of 1,976 patients were included. Automated ASPECTS demonstrated good reliability against reference standards (ICC: 0.72), comparable to expert readings (ICC: 0.62). RAPID ASPECTS performed highest (ICC: 0.86), especially for high-stakes decision-making. AI advantages were most significant with thin-slice CT (≤2.5mm; +0.16), intermediate time windows (120-240min; +0.16), and higher NIHSS scores (p=0.026). Conclusion: AI-driven ASPECTS systems perform comparably or even better in some cases than human readers in detecting early ischemic changes, especially in specific scenarios. Strategic utilization focusing on high-impact scenarios and region-specific performance patterns offers better diagnostic accuracy, reduced interpretation times, and better and wiser treatment selection in acute stroke care.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceASPECTSImagingMachine LearningStroke

Identifiers

PMID41049459
PMCPMC12490272

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.