Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Impact of pre-test probability on AI-LVO detection: a systematic review of LVO prevalence across clinical contexts

  • Marta Olivé-Gadea*
  • , Jordi Mayol
  • , Manuel Requena
  • , Marc Rodrigo-Gisbert
  • , Federica Rizzo
  • , Alvaro Garcia-Tornel
  • , Renato Simonetti
  • , Francesco Diana
  • , Marian Muchada
  • , Jorge Pagola
  • , David Rodriguez-Luna
  • , Noelia Rodriguez-Villatoro
  • , Marta Rubiera
  • , Carlos A. Molina
  • , Alejandro Tomasello
  • , David Hernandez
  • , Marta de Dios Lascuevas
  • , Marc Ribo
  • *Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Indexed journal article › Article › peer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Article number023775
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of NeuroInterventional Surgery
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 31 Aug 2025
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • CT
  • CT Angiography
  • Stroke
  • Ischaemic stroke

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Impact of pre-test probability on AI-LVO detection: a systematic review of LVO prevalence across clinical contexts'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this