Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41170263›Full record

ReviewCureus2025

Artificial Intelligence in Stroke Care: A Narrative Review of Diagnostic, Predictive, and Workflow Applications.

Vasant T Heeralal, Saiesha E Chadee, Benjamin Ilyaev, Rafael Ilyaev, Stella Ilyayeva

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

5 authors.

Vasant T HeeralalMedicine, The University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, TTO.
Saiesha E ChadeeMedicine, The University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, TTO.
Benjamin IlyaevMedicine, Hofstra University, Hempstead, USA.
Rafael IlyaevMedicine, New York Institute of Technology, Old Westbury, USA.
Stella IlyayevaEndocrinology and Diabetes, Atlantic Endocrinology and Diabetes, Queens, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a transformative force in stroke care, with increasing integration into diagnostic, predictive, and operational domains. This narrative review synthesizes the applications of AI in acute stroke management, drawing on peer-reviewed literature published between 2015 and 2024. A structured search of PubMed, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), and Litmaps identified 300 records, of which 46 met predefined criteria. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed, in English, and focused on ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke with reported clinical, operational, or system-level outcomes; studies limited to algorithm development or non-original data were excluded. "Real-world" contexts were defined as those involving implemented or externally validated tools, while international studies were included only when their findings were directly applicable to U.S. practice. This review was conducted narratively, organized by diagnostic, predictive, and workflow domains. In diagnostic imaging, AI platforms have demonstrated efficacy in detecting large vessel occlusions, hemorrhage, and perfusion deficits, expediting triage in time-critical scenarios. Predictive modeling tools support outcome forecasting and hemorrhagic risk stratification, while workflow applications such as AI-powered coordination platforms improve communication, accelerate decision-making, and reduce treatment delays. Some tools, including RapidAI and Viz.ai, have undergone multicenter validation, but most remain in early or proof-of-concept phases. Ethical concerns persist, particularly regarding dataset bias, lack of interpretability, and uneven access to advanced imaging infrastructure. Cost-effectiveness analyses remain sparse, leaving uncertainty about scalability in resource-limited settings. Collectively, these tools function not as autonomous decision-makers but as augmentative supports that reinforce clinical judgment and operational efficiency. The current evidence base highlights gaps that future research must address: multicenter prospective validation, standardized cost-effectiveness studies, equity-focused deployment, and explainability frameworks. Despite these limitations, AI is increasingly positioned as a scaffolding mechanism within stroke systems, enhancing rather than replacing the work of clinicians. Its evolution reflects a shift from proof-of-concept innovation to infrastructural augmentation, with its future impact contingent on rigorous validation, ethical design, and system-level alignment.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceneurology and critical careneurosurgeryradiologystroke care

Identifiers

PMID41170263
PMCPMC12570115

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.