ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Efficacy of MRI-based deep learning algorithm for detecting acute ischemic stroke: evaluation among diverse readers.
Article in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Bridging the expertise gap: how AI-assisted stroke detection levels the playing field in emergency medicine.European radiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe efficacy of an MRI-based deep learning algorithm (DLA) for detecting acute ischemic stroke (AIS) was evaluated across readers with diverse medical backgrounds, because DLA performance may be user-dependent. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective, multi-reader, multi-case crossover study included 407 MRI scans obtained from a single institution between April and June 2021. Nine readers with different backgrounds- radiology residents (1-2 years of radiology training), clinicians (no radiology training), and board-certified non-neuroradiologists (completed residency training)-independently read MRI scans, both with and without DLA detection probability. The ground truth was established by consensus among three neuroradiologists. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic confidence (0-4), and inter-reader agreement were compared between the groups with and without DLA.
resultsIn total, 407 patients (mean age, 66 years ± 16; 200 men) with 95 AIS (23%) were evaluated. Clinicians had the lowest baseline performance scores. The DLA significantly improved clinicians' AUC (from 0.90 [95% CI: 0.82-0.99]; to 0.93 [0.87-0.99]; p < 0.01), sensitivity (from 0.77 [0.65-0.88]; to 0.88 [0.75-0.99]; p < 0.01), and diagnostic confidence (from 0.71 ± 1.42; to 0.83 ± 1.53; p < 0.01), and all readers' inter-reader agreement (p < 0.01). Specificity for clinicians (from 0.95 [0.86-0.99] to 0.93 [0.80-0.99]; p = 0.55) and the performance of residents and non-neuroradiologists were not significantly affected by DLA assistance.
conclusionThe DLA significantly improved the performance and diagnostic confidence of clinicians, the lowest-performing readers, and the inter-reader agreement of all readers in diagnosing AIS. KEY POINTS: Question What is the efficacy of an MRI-based deep learning algorithm in assisting various medical professionals in identifying acute ischemic stroke? Findings Among radiology residents, clinicians, and board-certified non-neuroradiologists, the algorithm significantly improved clinicians' performance and diagnostic confidence while also enhancing inter-reader agreement for all readers. Clinical relevance The deep learning algorithm significantly improves the detection performance and diagnostic confidence of clinicians, the lowest-performing readers, for acute ischemic stroke. Furthermore, the inter-reader agreement among various medical professionals has improved significantly.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41249548What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.