Performance evaluation of two different software programs for automated ASPECTS scoring in patients with suspected stroke.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEMATOLOGY
Carolina Río Bártulos, Lukas Pirl, Dennis Lier, Mathis Planert, Juliane Hohmann, Abdelouahed El Mountassir, Mohamed El Anwar, Philipp Wiggermann
{"title":"Performance evaluation of two different software programs for automated ASPECTS scoring in patients with suspected stroke.","authors":"Carolina Río Bártulos, Lukas Pirl, Dennis Lier, Mathis Planert, Juliane Hohmann, Abdelouahed El Mountassir, Mohamed El Anwar, Philipp Wiggermann","doi":"10.3233/CH-238105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The range of software available to radiologists has increased enormously with the advancement of AI. A good example of this is software to determine ASPECTS in the treatment of potential stroke patients.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>In this study, two software packages (eASPECTS from Brainomix and VIA_ASPECTS from Siemens) were tested and compared for their performance in the daily clinical routine of a maximum care provider with a 24/7 stroke unit.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 637 noncontrast CT images were obtained from consecutive patients with suspected stroke, of whom 73 were finally diagnosed with MCA infarction. Differences in agreement and quantification of agreement were analysed, as well as the correlation and sensitivity, specificity and accuracy compared to raters.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared to VIA_ASPECTS, eASPECTS shows good agreement and strong correlation with the raters. VIA_ASPECTS has lower accuracy and low specificity than eASPECTS but a higher sensitivity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both software products have the potential to be decision support tools for radiologists. There are, however, differences between the two software products in terms of their intended use.</p>","PeriodicalId":10425,"journal":{"name":"Clinical hemorheology and microcirculation","volume":" ","pages":"109-119"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical hemorheology and microcirculation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/CH-238105","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The range of software available to radiologists has increased enormously with the advancement of AI. A good example of this is software to determine ASPECTS in the treatment of potential stroke patients.

Objective: In this study, two software packages (eASPECTS from Brainomix and VIA_ASPECTS from Siemens) were tested and compared for their performance in the daily clinical routine of a maximum care provider with a 24/7 stroke unit.

Methods: A total of 637 noncontrast CT images were obtained from consecutive patients with suspected stroke, of whom 73 were finally diagnosed with MCA infarction. Differences in agreement and quantification of agreement were analysed, as well as the correlation and sensitivity, specificity and accuracy compared to raters.

Results: Compared to VIA_ASPECTS, eASPECTS shows good agreement and strong correlation with the raters. VIA_ASPECTS has lower accuracy and low specificity than eASPECTS but a higher sensitivity.

Conclusion: Both software products have the potential to be decision support tools for radiologists. There are, however, differences between the two software products in terms of their intended use.

两种不同软件程序对疑似脑卒中患者进行 ASPECTS 自动评分的性能评估。
背景:随着人工智能的发展,可供放射科医生使用的软件种类已大大增加。在治疗潜在中风患者时,确定 ASPECTS 的软件就是一个很好的例子:本研究对两款软件(Brainomix 的 eASPECTS 和西门子的 VIA_ASPECTS)进行了测试,并比较了这两款软件在 24/7 全天候卒中单元最高护理人员日常临床工作中的表现:方法:从连续的疑似中风患者身上共获取了 637 张非对比 CT 图像,其中 73 人最终被诊断为 MCA 梗死。结果:与 VIA_ASPEC 和 VIA_ASPEC 相比,VIA_ASPEC 和 VIA_ASPEC 的准确性更高:结果:与 VIA_ASPECTS 相比,eASPECTS 与评分者显示出良好的一致性和很强的相关性。与 eASPECTS 相比,VIA_ASPECTS 的准确性和特异性较低,但灵敏度较高:结论:两种软件产品都有可能成为放射科医生的决策支持工具。结论:两款软件产品都有可能成为放射科医生的决策支持工具,但在预期用途方面存在差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
33.30%
发文量
170
期刊介绍: Clinical Hemorheology and Microcirculation, a peer-reviewed international scientific journal, serves as an aid to understanding the flow properties of blood and the relationship to normal and abnormal physiology. The rapidly expanding science of hemorheology concerns blood, its components and the blood vessels with which blood interacts. It includes perihemorheology, i.e., the rheology of fluid and structures in the perivascular and interstitial spaces as well as the lymphatic system. The clinical aspects include pathogenesis, symptomatology and diagnostic methods, and the fields of prophylaxis and therapy in all branches of medicine and surgery, pharmacology and drug research. The endeavour of the Editors-in-Chief and publishers of Clinical Hemorheology and Microcirculation is to bring together contributions from those working in various fields related to blood flow all over the world. The editors of Clinical Hemorheology and Microcirculation are from those countries in Europe, Asia, Australia and America where appreciable work in clinical hemorheology and microcirculation is being carried out. Each editor takes responsibility to decide on the acceptance of a manuscript. He is required to have the manuscript appraised by two referees and may be one of them himself. The executive editorial office, to which the manuscripts have been submitted, is responsible for rapid handling of the reviewing process. Clinical Hemorheology and Microcirculation accepts original papers, brief communications, mini-reports and letters to the Editors-in-Chief. Review articles, providing general views and new insights into related subjects, are regularly invited by the Editors-in-Chief. Proceedings of international and national conferences on clinical hemorheology (in original form or as abstracts) complete the range of editorial features.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信