Human Readers versus AI-Based Systems in ASPECTS Scoring for Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Region-Specific Guidance.

ASIDE internal medicine Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2025-05-17 DOI:10.71079/aside.im.05172573
Ahmed Y Azzam, Ibrahim Hadadi, Leen M Al-Shahrani, Ummkulthum A Shanqeeti, Noor A Alqurqush, Mohammed A Alsehli, Rudaynah S Alali, Rahaf S Tammar, Mahmoud M Morsy, Muhammed Amir Essibayi
{"title":"Human Readers versus AI-Based Systems in ASPECTS Scoring for Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Region-Specific Guidance.","authors":"Ahmed Y Azzam, Ibrahim Hadadi, Leen M Al-Shahrani, Ummkulthum A Shanqeeti, Noor A Alqurqush, Mohammed A Alsehli, Rudaynah S Alali, Rahaf S Tammar, Mahmoud M Morsy, Muhammed Amir Essibayi","doi":"10.71079/aside.im.05172573","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":520384,"journal":{"name":"ASIDE internal medicine","volume":"1 4","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12490272/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ASIDE internal medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.71079/aside.im.05172573","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

人类读者与基于人工智能的系统在急性缺血性卒中评分方面的对比:一项具有区域特异性指导的系统评价和荟萃分析。
简介:阿尔伯塔卒中计划早期CT评分(ASPECTS)被广泛用于评估急性卒中患者的早期缺血性改变和指导血栓切除术决策。然而,在手工方面评估中,显著的观察者之间的可变性提出了一个挑战。人工智能的最新进展使自动化方面评分系统的发展成为可能;然而,它们与专家解释的比较表现仍然没有得到充分的研究。方法:我们按照PRISMA 2020指南进行了系统综述和荟萃分析。我们检索了多个科学数据库,以比较非对比计算机断层扫描(NCCT)的自动和手动方面的研究。采用混合类间相关系数(ICCs)评估观察者间的信度。使用软件类型、参考标准、时间窗和基于计算机层析成像的因素进行亚组分析。结果:11项研究共纳入1976例患者。自动化方面对参考标准(ICC: 0.72)显示出良好的可靠性,与专家读数(ICC: 0.62)相当。快速方面表现最高(ICC: 0.86),特别是在高风险决策方面。AI优势在薄层CT(≤2.5mm, +0.16)、中间时间窗(120-240min, +0.16)、NIHSS评分较高时最为显著(p=0.026)。结论:在某些情况下,人工智能驱动的ASPECTS系统在检测早期缺血性变化方面的表现与人类读者相当,甚至更好,特别是在特定情况下。战略利用侧重于高影响情景和特定区域的表现模式,可以提高诊断准确性,减少解释时间,并在急性卒中护理中提供更好和更明智的治疗选择。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信