Ir directamente a la navegación principal Ir directamente a la búsqueda Ir directamente al contenido principal

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
  • *Autor/a de correspondencia de este trabajo

Producción científica: Artículo en revista indizada › Artículo › revisión exhaustiva

3 Citas (Scopus)

Resumen

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.

Idioma originalInglés
Número de artículo023775
Número de páginas8
PublicaciónJournal of NeuroInterventional Surgery
DOI
EstadoPublicada - 31 ago 2025
Publicado de forma externaSí

Huella

Profundice en los temas de investigación de 'Impact of pre-test probability on AI-LVO detection: a systematic review of LVO prevalence across clinical contexts'. En conjunto forman una huella única.

Cómo citar