ArticleNeuroradiology2026
Non-Contrast CT versus CT perfusion for predicting post-thrombectomy outcomes in anterior circulation large vessel occlusion stroke.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWhile CT perfusion (CTP) is the current standard for endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) selection in extended time windows with acute ischemic stroke with large vessel occlusion (LVO-AIS), the added prognostic value of CTP over non-contrast CT (NCCT)-based models remains debated, particularly when combined with clinical variables.
methodsIn this dual-center retrospective cohort study, we analyzed 216 consecutive anterior circulation LVO-AIS patients undergoing EVT between May 2021 and March 2024. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed on both NCCT-derived and CTP-derived imaging parameters alongside clinical variables, with 90-day functional independence (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] 0-2) as primary endpoint. The ROC curves of the two models were computed using 5-fold cross-validation, and differences in the area under the curve (AUC) were evaluated using DeLong's test.
resultsFunctional independence (mRS 0-2) was achieved in 42.6% (92/216) of the patients. The NCCT-clinical model incorporated ASPECTS, baseline NIHSS and diabetes status, and the CTP-clinical model incorporated ischemic core volume, baseline NIHSS and diabetes status. The NCCT-clinical model demonstrated AUC of 0.819 and the CTP-clinical model 0.834. The difference of AUC showed no statistical significance between NCCT-clinical model and the CTP-clinical model (ΔAUC = 0.015, P = 0.964). The NCCT-clinic model demonstrated comparable performance to CTP-clinic model, including accuracy (74.0% vs. 75.8%), sensitivity (80.5% vs. 82.1%) and specificity (65.7% vs. 67.7%).
conclusionThe NCCT-clinical model achieved comparable ability to predict prognosis compared to the CTP-clinical model in extended time windows with LVO-AIS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41148290What 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.