Artificial intelligence to diagnose ischemic stroke and identify large vessel occlusions: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Acute stroke caused by large vessel occlusions (LVOs) requires emergent detection and treatment by endovascular thrombectomy. However, radiologic LVO detection and treatment is subject to variable delays and human expertise, resulting in morbidity. Imaging software using artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML), a branch of AI, may improve rapid frontline detection of LVO strokes. This report is a systematic review of AI in acute LVO stroke identification and triage, and characterizes LVO detection software. METHODS: A systematic review of acute stroke diagnostic-focused AI studies from January 2014 to February 2019 in PubMed, Medline, and Embase using terms: 'artificial intelligence' or 'machine learning or deep learning' and 'ischemic stroke' or 'large vessel occlusion' was performed. RESULTS: Variations of AI, including ML methods of random forest learning (RFL) and convolutional neural networks (CNNs), are used to detect LVO strokes. Twenty studies were identified that use ML. Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) commonly used RFL, while LVO detection typically used CNNs. Image feature detection had greater sensitivity with CNN than with RFL, 85% versus 68%. However, AI algorithm performance metrics use different standards, precluding ideal objective comparison. Four current software platforms incorporate ML: Brainomix (greatest validation of AI for ASPECTS, uses CNNs to automatically detect LVOs), General Electric, iSchemaView (largest number of perfusion study validations for thrombectomy), and Viz.ai (uses CNNs to automatically detect LVOs, then automatically activates emergency stroke treatment systems). CONCLUSIONS: AI may improve LVO stroke detection and rapid triage necessary for expedited treatment. Standardization of performance assessment is needed in future studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".