ArticleStroke (Hoboken, N.J.)2025
Evaluation of a Deep Learning Tool for Detecting Large Vessel Occlusion and Intracranial Hemorrhage on Noncontrast Computed Tomography Scans.
Article in Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- AGTS-Net: Anatomically Guided Two-Stage Network for Actionable Stroke Classification in Complete NCCT Studies.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study is to assess the accuracy of automated artificial intelligence (AI) deep-learning-based modules in predicting suspected intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) or anterior circulation large vessel occlusion (LVO) on noncontrast computed tomography (NCCT) studies.
methodsWe conducted a multicenter international retrospective cohort study, involving 6 stroke centers from the United States and Europe. We included patients in whom an acute stroke was suspected on admission and who underwent an NCCT and a CT angiography when ICH was not observed. Two neuroradiologists and a third one in case of discrepancies retrospectively evaluated all images and established the presence of ICH on NCCT and LVO on computed tomography angiography (ground truth). All NCCT scans were analyzed using 2 automated AI deep-learning modules (Methinks, Barcelona, Spain) to assess the presence of ICH or LVO.
resultsTo assess the performance of the NCCT-ICH module, a total of 200 patients were included in the study. The neuroradiologist's evaluation confirmed the presence of ICH in 97 cases (48.5%). To assess the performance of the NCCT-LVO module, 382 patients were analyzed, with the neuroradiologist identifying a LVO in 141 cases (36.9%). The AI module for NCCT-ICH detection demonstrated a sensitivity of 94.9% (95% CI]: 88.4%-98.3%) and specificity of 99.0% (95% CI: 94.7%-99.9%) with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.974 (95% CI: 0.94-0.99). The LVO detection AI module on NCCT demonstrated a sensitivity of 81.6% (95% CI: 74.2-87.6), and specificity of 87.1% (95% CI: 82.2-91.1) with an area under the receiver operating characteristic of 0.915 (95% CI: 0.88-0.94).
conclusionsThe AI modules demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity in predicting ICH and LVO, suggesting their potential in offering support in clinical decisions in stroke networks immediately after NCCT is performed.
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.