ArticleClinical neuroradiology2026
Clinical Implementation and Performance of Real-Time AI System for Device Tracking in Neurointervention: First U.S. Evaluation of Neuro-Vascular Assist.
Article in Clinical 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the first U.S.-based implementation, notification accuracy, and temporal operator response of Neuro-Vascular Assist.
methodsIn a single-center study, 21 consecutive neurointerventional cases were performed using the AI system integrated with a biplane angiographic system. Procedures were classified as "Standard", "Coil", "Filter", or "Venous". Neuro-Vascular Assist tracked devices including guidewires, stents, coils, and filters in real-time. Visual and audio notifications were made based on device entry and exit in a determined region of interest. We classified these notifications as true positives (TP), false positives (FP), and false negatives (FN), and further assessed for temporal operator response (TOR).
resultsThe AI system was successfully integrated into the workflow without procedural delays or system failures affecting notification delivery. A total of 232 TPs, 13 FPs, and 17 FNs were recorded, resulting in an overall precision of 94.7% and recall of 93.2%. Among the 59 TP notifications evaluated for TOR, 25 (42.4%) were followed by an observable operator response within 10 s. These 25 positive TOR events represented 10.2% of all 245 notifications.
conclusionNeuro-Vascular Assist was successfully implemented and demonstrated preliminary accuracy and feasibility in a U.S.-based neurointerventional setting. Larger prospective studies are warranted to determine whether real-time AI-assisted device tracking influences procedural decision-making, workflow, safety, or clinical outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42766128What 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.