Trial reportScientific reports2026
Deep learning algorithm for automatic detection of acute ischemic stroke on noncontrast brain CT.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 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
This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of a deep learning-based algorithm for detecting acute ischemic stroke (AIS), including small infarcts, on non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT). A retrospective, multi-reader, pivotal, crossover, randomized study involving 917 cases was conducted to validate the performance of an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm. NCCT images were independently reviewed by nine readers categorized into three subgroups (three non-radiologist physicians, three board-certified radiologists, and three neuroradiologists), both with and without the assistance of the AI algorithm. In standalone analysis, the AI model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.8144, with an accuracy of 73.8%, sensitivity of 75.8%, and specificity of 72.6%. AI-assisted brain CT interpretation showed higher diagnostic accuracy than AI-unassisted interpretation (75.63% vs. 72.03%, with improvement of 3.60%, p < 0.001). Among the three subgroups of reviewers, non-radiologist physicians showed the greatest improvement in diagnostic accuracy with AI assistance compared with without AI assistance (75.35% vs. 69.97%, with improvement of 5.38%, p < 0.001). Our results suggested that AI-assisted interpretation can improve diagnostic performance in the detection of AIS on NCCT across a range of infarct volumes and reader expertise levels. Its integration into clinical workflows could facilitate more timely and equitable AIS diagnosis.
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.