ArticleBMC medical imaging2026
Commercial AI platforms improve reproducibility but fail to meet clinical precision thresholds for intracranial aneurysm measurement: implications for serial surveillance.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 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.
- Artificial Intelligence for Cerebral Aneurysm Management: Integrating Imaging, Hemodynamics, and Clinical Decision Support.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntracranial aneurysm affect 3-7% of the global population, with rupture causing > 80% of non-traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage and approximately 50% mortality. Clinical management relies on precise measurement of aneurysm neck width and maximum length, where ≥ 1 mm growth signals elevated rupture risk. computed tomography angiography enables non-invasive monitoring but manual measurements suffer from inter-observer variability. Commercial artificial intelligence platforms offer potential improvements, yet their consistency and accuracy versus digital subtraction angiography, the gold standard, are understudied.
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed 148 patients with 163 Intracranial aneurysms via computed tomography angiography, including a subgroup of 86 with digital subtraction angiography within 1 week. Measurements were obtained using Shukun artificial intelligence, UIH artificial intelligence, manual computed tomography angiography (intra-observer repeated at 1 month), and digital subtraction angiography. Reproducibility was assessed by coefficient of variation; agreement by Bland-Altman analysis, with 95% limits of agreement within ± 1.0 mm considered clinically acceptable.
resultsResults For aneurysm neck width, manual measurements had a mean difference of -1.62 mm and 95% limits of agreement of -4.87 to 1.62 mm vs. digital subtraction angiography, while UIH artificial intelligence and Shukun artificial intelligence had mean differences of + 0.80 mm and - 1.01 mm, and 95% limits of agreement of -3.68 to 2.08 mm and - 3.06 to 1.04 mm, respectively. For aneurysm maximum length, UIH artificial intelligence systematically overestimated (mean difference: +3.46 mm) and Shukun artificial intelligence underestimated (mean difference: -2.20 mm) vs. digital subtraction angiography. Both artificial intelligence platforms had narrower coefficients of variation (0.31-0.36 for aneurysm neck width, 0.23-0.26 for aneurysm maximum length) than manual measurements (0.36-0.42, 0.23-0.24). However, all methods exceeded the clinically acceptable ± 1.0 mm threshold.
conclusionsArtificial intelligence platforms have better reproducibility than manual measurements but show systematic biases, not meeting the clinical ± 1.0 mm precision vs. the digital subtraction angiography gold standard. Inter-platform variability exceeds the aneurysm growth threshold, requiring consistent use of the same artificial intelligence platform in serial surveillance to prevent misinterpreting changes.
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.