Accuracy of Automated Computer-Aided Diagnosis for Stroke Imaging: A Critical Evaluation of Current Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is increasing interest in computer applications, using artificial intelligence methodologies, to perform health care tasks previously performed by humans, particularly in medical imaging for diagnosis. In stroke, there are now commercial artificial intelligence software for use with computed tomography or MR imaging to identify acute ischemic brain tissue pathology, arterial obstruction on computed tomography angiography or as hyperattenuated arteries on computed tomography, brain hemorrhage, or size of perfusion defects. A rapid, accurate diagnosis may aid treatment decisions for individual patients and could improve outcome if it leads to effective and safe treatment; or conversely, to disaster if a delayed or incorrect diagnosis results in inappropriate treatment. Despite this potential clinical impact, diagnostic tools including artificial intelligence methods are not subjected to the same clinical evaluation standards as are mandatory for drugs. Here, we provide an evidence-based review of the pros and cons of commercially available automated methods for medical imaging diagnosis, including those based on artificial intelligence, to diagnose acute brain pathology on computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging in patients with stroke.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".