Scholarlink

Background <p>Non-contrast CT (NCCT) is first-line imaging for suspected acute ischemic stroke (AIS) but has limited early sensitivity; deep learning (DL) may improve patient-level detection.</p> Objectives <p>To estimate the diagnostic accuracy of DL applied to NCCT for patient-level AIS detection and to examine prespecified sources of between-study heterogeneity.</p> Methods <p>We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science (January 2010–May 2025). Eligible prospective or retrospective diagnostic studies evaluated DL on NCCT against an appropriate reference standard and reported (or allowed reconstruction of) patient-level 2 × 2 data. Two-gate case–control and lesion-only reports were excluded. Dual reviewers screened/extracted data; risk of bias was assessed with QUADAS-2, and AI-reporting against items adapted from STARD-AI/CLAIM/CONSORT-AI. Bivariate random-effects/HSROC models summarized sensitivity and specificity. Prespecified moderators were posterior-fossa inclusion, reference-standard robustness, and validation type. Sensitivity analyses included external-only cohorts, robust standards, posterior-fossa inclusion, and a “Direct AIS” construct subset.</p> Results <p>Of 1,899 records, 16 studies met inclusion; 13 contributed patient-level data to meta-analysis. Summary sensitivity was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.81–0.96) and specificity 0.90 (0.85–0.94). Sensitivity was lower for externally validated models than internally validated ones (0.82 [0.67–0.91] vs. 0.95 [0.89–0.98]) with similar specificity (0.88 [0.83–0.92] vs. 0.93 [0.82–0.97]). Findings were directionally robust across sensitivity analyses. QUADAS-2 frequently indicated concerns in patient selection and index-test domains; AI-reporting quality was mostly moderate, and explicit external validation remained uncommon.</p> Conclusions <p>DL applied to NCCT shows high accuracy for patient-level AIS detection. However, generalizability is the principal gap; broader external validation and guideline-concordant reporting are needed to support safe clinical adoption.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Deep-learning–based non-contrast CT for detecting acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review and HSROC meta-analysis of patient-level diagnostic accuracy

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月15日

查看全文
  • Kalab Yigermal Gete,
  • Asnakew Achaw Ayele

摘要

Background

Non-contrast CT (NCCT) is first-line imaging for suspected acute ischemic stroke (AIS) but has limited early sensitivity; deep learning (DL) may improve patient-level detection.

Objectives

To estimate the diagnostic accuracy of DL applied to NCCT for patient-level AIS detection and to examine prespecified sources of between-study heterogeneity.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science (January 2010–May 2025). Eligible prospective or retrospective diagnostic studies evaluated DL on NCCT against an appropriate reference standard and reported (or allowed reconstruction of) patient-level 2 × 2 data. Two-gate case–control and lesion-only reports were excluded. Dual reviewers screened/extracted data; risk of bias was assessed with QUADAS-2, and AI-reporting against items adapted from STARD-AI/CLAIM/CONSORT-AI. Bivariate random-effects/HSROC models summarized sensitivity and specificity. Prespecified moderators were posterior-fossa inclusion, reference-standard robustness, and validation type. Sensitivity analyses included external-only cohorts, robust standards, posterior-fossa inclusion, and a “Direct AIS” construct subset.

Results

Of 1,899 records, 16 studies met inclusion; 13 contributed patient-level data to meta-analysis. Summary sensitivity was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.81–0.96) and specificity 0.90 (0.85–0.94). Sensitivity was lower for externally validated models than internally validated ones (0.82 [0.67–0.91] vs. 0.95 [0.89–0.98]) with similar specificity (0.88 [0.83–0.92] vs. 0.93 [0.82–0.97]). Findings were directionally robust across sensitivity analyses. QUADAS-2 frequently indicated concerns in patient selection and index-test domains; AI-reporting quality was mostly moderate, and explicit external validation remained uncommon.

Conclusions

DL applied to NCCT shows high accuracy for patient-level AIS detection. However, generalizability is the principal gap; broader external validation and guideline-concordant reporting are needed to support safe clinical adoption.