Human Readers versus AI-Based Systems in ASPECTS Scoring for Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Region-Specific Guidance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) is widely used to evaluate early ischemic changes and guide thrombectomy decisions in acute stroke patients. However, significant interobserver variability in manual ASPECTS assessment presents a challenge. Recent advances in artificial intelligence have enabled the development of automated ASPECTS scoring systems; however, their comparative performance against expert interpretation remains insufficiently studied. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. We searched multiple scientific databases for studies comparing automated and manual ASPECTS on Non-Contrast Computed Tomography (NCCT). Interobserver reliability was assessed using pooled interclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Subgroup analyses were made using software types, reference standards, time windows, and computed tomography-based factors. Results: Eleven studies with a total of 1,976 patients were included. Automated ASPECTS demonstrated good reliability against reference standards (ICC: 0.72), comparable to expert readings (ICC: 0.62). RAPID ASPECTS performed highest (ICC: 0.86), especially for high-stakes decision-making. AI advantages were most significant with thin-slice CT (≤2.5mm; +0.16), intermediate time windows (120-240min; +0.16), and higher NIHSS scores (p=0.026). Conclusion: AI-driven ASPECTS systems perform comparably or even better in some cases than human readers in detecting early ischemic changes, especially in specific scenarios. Strategic utilization focusing on high-impact scenarios and region-specific performance patterns offers better diagnostic accuracy, reduced interpretation times, and better and wiser treatment selection in acute stroke care.
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 | 0.023 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".