ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026
Artificial Intelligence in Cerebral Small Vessel Disease Imaging: A Study-Level Cross-Sectional Analysis of Validation Status and Clinical Applicability.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in cerebral small vessel disease (CSVD) imaging, but the extent of validation and clinical applicability across the literature remains uncertain. We performed a study-level cross-sectional analysis using a frozen Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) cohort supplemented by PubMed and IEEE Xplore searches to assess database coverage and the stability of findings from the WoSCC cohort. After study-level reconciliation, 463 independent studies were included. White matter hyperintensity segmentation/quantification was the most common task (196/463, 42.3%), followed by cerebral microbleed detection/classification (82/463, 17.7%), perivascular space/lacune assessment (67/463, 14.5%), CSVD burden/risk modeling (62/463, 13.4%), and clinical outcome prediction (56/463, 12.1%). Deep learning was the largest model family (185/463, 40.0%). Higher validation levels (L4-L5) were reached by 146/462 studies (31.6%), external or multicenter validation was reported in 147/463 (31.7%), and higher clinical applicability evidence was identified in 159/462 (34.4%). Calibration (51/438, 11.6%), decision curve or net-benefit analysis (40/436, 9.2%), and reader-, workflow-, or implementation-based evaluation (34/436, 7.8%) remained uncommon. Broader database coverage materially changed the task and model composition of the evidence base, particularly by increasing the representation of white matter hyperintensity and image-processing studies, but did not alter the central finding that high-level validation and clinically oriented evaluation remain limited.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42760458What 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.