ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2026
Comparison of PMAneo and RAPID in acute ischemic stroke: agreement in CT perfusion analysis and DEFUSE 3 imaging eligibility.
Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAutomated computed tomography perfusion (CTP) analysis plays a key role in triaging acute ischemic stroke (AIS). This study aimed to evaluate the agreement of PMAneo compared with RAPID in a multicenter setting. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 99 patients with anterior circulation AIS from three stroke centers using four different CT scanners. CTP data were processed using both PMAneo and RAPID. Volumetric agreement for ischemic core volume and Tmax > 6 s volume was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman analysis. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with volume discrepancies. EVT imaging eligibility was evaluated according to the DEFUSE 3 criteria (ischemic core volume < 70 mL, mismatch ratio ≥ 1.8, and absolute mismatch volume ≥ 15 mL), using RAPID as the comparator.
resultsIschemic core volumes showed excellent agreement between the two platforms (ICC = 0.881, 95% CI 0.827-0.918), and Tmax > 6 s volumes showed good agreement (ICC = 0.761, 95% CI 0.283-0.896), whereas mismatch volumes showed moderate agreement (ICC = 0.661, 95% CI 0.146-0.844). For the ischemic core threshold (< 70 mL), PMAneo demonstrated 100% (95% CI 96-100%) relative sensitivity and 67% (95% CI 38-88%) relative specificity. For the full DEFUSE 3 criteria, the relative sensitivity and specificity were 81% (95% CI 70-89%) and 84% (95% CI 66-95%), respectively. Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated proportional bias, with PMAneo underestimating volumes relative to RAPID as lesion size increased. Basal ganglia involvement and imaging site were significantly associated with these volume differences (p < 0.05).
conclusionPMAneo showed high volumetric agreement and comparable DEFUSE 3 imaging eligibility to RAPID, suggesting it is a reliable alternative for automated CTP analysis. Although proportional bias and potential diagnostic discrepancies were observed in borderline cases near clinically relevant thresholds, PMAneo may facilitate broader access to automated CTP analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42891782What 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.