TY - JOUR
T1 - Impact of pre-test probability on AI-LVO detection
T2 - a systematic review of LVO prevalence across clinical contexts
AU - Olivé-Gadea, Marta
AU - Mayol, Jordi
AU - Requena, Manuel
AU - Rodrigo-Gisbert, Marc
AU - Rizzo, Federica
AU - Garcia-Tornel, Alvaro
AU - Simonetti, Renato
AU - Diana, Francesco
AU - Muchada, Marian
AU - Pagola, Jorge
AU - Rodriguez-Luna, David
AU - Rodriguez-Villatoro, Noelia
AU - Rubiera, Marta
AU - Molina, Carlos A.
AU - Tomasello, Alejandro
AU - Hernandez, David
AU - Lascuevas, Marta de Dios
AU - Ribo, Marc
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2025.
PY - 2025/8/31
Y1 - 2025/8/31
N2 - Background Rapid identification of large vessel occlusion (LVO) in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is essential for reperfusion therapy. Screening tools, including Artificial Intelligence (AI) based algorithms, have been developed to accelerate detection but rely heavily on pre-test LVO prevalence. This study aimed to review LVO prevalence across clinical contexts and analyze its impact on AI-algorithm performance. Methods We systematically reviewed studies reporting consecutive suspected AIS cohorts. Cohorts were grouped into four clinical scenarios based on patient selection criteria: (a) high suspicion of LVO by stroke specialists (direct-to-angiosuite candidates), (b) high suspicion of LVO according to pre-hospital scales, (c) and (d) any suspected AIS without considering severity cut-off in a hospital or pre-hospital setting, respectively. We analyzed LVO prevalence in each scenario and assessed the false discovery rate (FDR) - number of positive studies needed to encounter a false positive, if applying eight commercially available LVO-detecting algorithms. Results We included 87 cohorts from 80 studies. Median LVO prevalence was: (a) 84% (77–87%), (b) 35% (26–42%), (c) 19% (14–25%), and (d) 14% (8–22%). At high prevalence levels: (a) FDR ranged between 0.007 (1 false positive in 142 positives) and 0.023 (1 in 43), whereas in low prevalence scenarios (Ccand d), FDR ranged between 0.168 (1 in 6) and 0.543 (over 1 in 2). Conclusion To ensure meaningful clinical impact, AI algorithms must be evaluated within the specific populations and care pathways where they are applied.
AB - Background Rapid identification of large vessel occlusion (LVO) in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is essential for reperfusion therapy. Screening tools, including Artificial Intelligence (AI) based algorithms, have been developed to accelerate detection but rely heavily on pre-test LVO prevalence. This study aimed to review LVO prevalence across clinical contexts and analyze its impact on AI-algorithm performance. Methods We systematically reviewed studies reporting consecutive suspected AIS cohorts. Cohorts were grouped into four clinical scenarios based on patient selection criteria: (a) high suspicion of LVO by stroke specialists (direct-to-angiosuite candidates), (b) high suspicion of LVO according to pre-hospital scales, (c) and (d) any suspected AIS without considering severity cut-off in a hospital or pre-hospital setting, respectively. We analyzed LVO prevalence in each scenario and assessed the false discovery rate (FDR) - number of positive studies needed to encounter a false positive, if applying eight commercially available LVO-detecting algorithms. Results We included 87 cohorts from 80 studies. Median LVO prevalence was: (a) 84% (77–87%), (b) 35% (26–42%), (c) 19% (14–25%), and (d) 14% (8–22%). At high prevalence levels: (a) FDR ranged between 0.007 (1 false positive in 142 positives) and 0.023 (1 in 43), whereas in low prevalence scenarios (Ccand d), FDR ranged between 0.168 (1 in 6) and 0.543 (over 1 in 2). Conclusion To ensure meaningful clinical impact, AI algorithms must be evaluated within the specific populations and care pathways where they are applied.
KW - CT
KW - CT Angiography
KW - Stroke
KW - Ischaemic stroke
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105014982588
UR - https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:001561459100001
U2 - 10.1136/jnis-2025-023775
DO - 10.1136/jnis-2025-023775
M3 - Article
C2 - 40889892
AN - SCOPUS:105014982588
SN - 1759-8478
JO - Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery
JF - Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery
M1 - 023775
ER -