ArticleNeuroradiology2026
Influence of deep learning image reconstruction and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-V on automated Alberta stroke program early CT score- evaluation.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) and advances in CT reconstruction play important roles in the neurodiagnostic workflow. This study examines the effect of these reconstruction techniques on automated ASPECTS.
methodsIn this retrospective study, 173 patients (median age 79 years, 39% female) with suspected middle cerebral artery infarction underwent non-contrast CT scans reconstructed with Filtered Back Projection (FBP), ASIR-V (30% and 60%), and DLIR (low, medium, and high). Automated ASPECTS were analyzed, with FBP as the reference standard.
resultsBland-Altman analysis revealed a mean bias with ASIR and DLIR underestimating ASPECTS compared to FBP. This underestimation was less pronounced for ASIR-V 30% (-0.057 ) and DLIR-L (-0.069) than for ASIR-V 60% (-0.126), DLIR-M (-0.121), and DLIR-H (-0.086). The region with the greatest overestimation relative to FBP was M3 (n = 23), while the region with the greatest underestimation was the insular ribbon (n = 51). Regarding the ASPECTS < 6 threshold, most patients were reclassified from ASPECTS ≤ 5 to ASPECTS ≥ 6 with DLIR-M (n = 5), which also showed the strongest agreement with expert consensus (κ = 0.352).
conclusionBoth ASIR-V and DLIR resulted in only minor underestimation of ASPECTS compared to FBP. However, most patients became eligible for endovascular therapy due to ASPECTS reclassification with DLIR-M. DLIR-M also exhibited the highest agreement with expert consensus for automated ASPECTS. Therefore, careful selection of reconstruction parameters, as well as further optimization and standardization of these techniques, is essential for broader application in stroke imaging.
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.