V K Sundaram1, J Goldstein1, D Wheelwright2, A Aggarwal1, P S Pawha1, A Doshi1, J T Fifi2,3, R De Leacy2,3, J Mocco3, J Puig4, K Nael5. 1. From the Department of Radiology (V.K.S., J.G., A.A., P.P., A.D., K.N.). 2. Neuroimaging Advanced and Exploratory Lab, Department of Neurology (D.W., J.T.F., R.D.L.). 3. Department of Neurosurgery (J.T.F., R.D.L., J.M.), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. 4. Department of Radiology (J.P.). University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. 5. From the Department of Radiology (V.K.S., J.G., A.A., P.P., A.D., K.N.) kambiznael@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Automated ASPECTS has the potential of reducing interobserver variability in the determination of early ischemic changes. We aimed to assess the performance of an automated ASPECTS software against the assessment of a neuroradiologist in a comparative analysis with concurrent CTP-based CBV ASPECTS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with anterior circulation stroke who had baseline NCCT and CTP and underwent successful mechanical thrombectomy were included. NCCT-ASPECTS was assessed by 2 neuroradiologists, and discrepancies were resolved by consensus. CTP-CBV ASPECTS was assessed by a different neuroradiologist. Automated ASPECTS was provided by Brainomix software. ASPECTS was dichotomized (ASPECTS ≥6 or <6) and was also based on the time from onset (>6 or ≤6 hours). RESULTS: A total of 58 patients were included. The interobserver agreement for NCCT ASPECTS was moderate (κ = 0.48) and marginally improved (κ = 0.64) for dichotomized data. Automated ASPECTS showed excellent agreement with consensus reads (κ = 0.84) and CTP-CBV ASPECTS (κ = 0.84). Intraclass correlation coefficients for ASPECTS across all 3 groups were 0.84 (95% CI, 0.76-0.90, raw scores) and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.91-0.96, dichotomized scores). Automated scores were comparable with consensus reads and CTP-CBV ASPECTS in patients when grouped on the basis of time from symptom onset (>6 or ≤6 hours). There was significant (P < .001) negative correlation with final infarction volume and the 3 ASPECTS groups (r = -0.52, consensus reads; -0.58, CTP-CBV; and -0.66, automated). CONCLUSIONS: ASPECTS derived from an automated software performs equally as well as consensus reads of expert neuroradiologists and concurrent CTP-CBV ASPECTS and can be used to standardize ASPECTS reporting and minimize interpretation variability.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Automated ASPECTS has the potential of reducing interobserver variability in the determination of early ischemic changes. We aimed to assess the performance of an automated ASPECTS software against the assessment of a neuroradiologist in a comparative analysis with concurrent CTP-based CBV ASPECTS. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients with anterior circulation stroke who had baseline NCCT and CTP and underwent successful mechanical thrombectomy were included. NCCT-ASPECTS was assessed by 2 neuroradiologists, and discrepancies were resolved by consensus. CTP-CBV ASPECTS was assessed by a different neuroradiologist. Automated ASPECTS was provided by Brainomix software. ASPECTS was dichotomized (ASPECTS ≥6 or <6) and was also based on the time from onset (>6 or ≤6 hours). RESULTS: A total of 58 patients were included. The interobserver agreement for NCCT ASPECTS was moderate (κ = 0.48) and marginally improved (κ = 0.64) for dichotomized data. Automated ASPECTS showed excellent agreement with consensus reads (κ = 0.84) and CTP-CBV ASPECTS (κ = 0.84). Intraclass correlation coefficients for ASPECTS across all 3 groups were 0.84 (95% CI, 0.76-0.90, raw scores) and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.91-0.96, dichotomized scores). Automated scores were comparable with consensus reads and CTP-CBV ASPECTS in patients when grouped on the basis of time from symptom onset (>6 or ≤6 hours). There was significant (P < .001) negative correlation with final infarction volume and the 3 ASPECTS groups (r = -0.52, consensus reads; -0.58, CTP-CBV; and -0.66, automated). CONCLUSIONS: ASPECTS derived from an automated software performs equally as well as consensus reads of expert neuroradiologists and concurrent CTP-CBV ASPECTS and can be used to standardize ASPECTS reporting and minimize interpretation variability.
Authors: Marios-Nikos Psychogios; Michael Knauth; Raya Bshara; Katharina Schregel; Ioannis Tsogkas; Ismini Papageorgiou; Ilko Maier; Jan Liman; Daniel Behme Journal: Neuroradiol J Date: 2017-01-01
Authors: William J Powers; Alejandro A Rabinstein; Teri Ackerson; Opeolu M Adeoye; Nicholas C Bambakidis; Kyra Becker; José Biller; Michael Brown; Bart M Demaerschalk; Brian Hoh; Edward C Jauch; Chelsea S Kidwell; Thabele M Leslie-Mazwi; Bruce Ovbiagele; Phillip A Scott; Kevin N Sheth; Andrew M Southerland; Deborah V Summers; David L Tirschwell Journal: Stroke Date: 2018-01-24 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Simon Nagel; Devesh Sinha; Diana Day; Wolfgang Reith; René Chapot; Panagiotis Papanagiotou; Elizabeth A Warburton; Paul Guyler; Sharon Tysoe; Klaus Fassbender; Silke Walter; Marco Essig; Jens Heidenrich; Angelos A Konstas; Michael Harrison; Michalis Papadakis; Eric Greveson; Olivier Joly; Stephen Gerry; Holly Maguire; Christine Roffe; James Hampton-Till; Alastair M Buchan; Iris Q Grunwald Journal: Int J Stroke Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 5.266
Authors: Jeffrey L Saver; Mayank Goyal; Alain Bonafe; Hans-Christoph Diener; Elad I Levy; Vitor M Pereira; Gregory W Albers; Christophe Cognard; David J Cohen; Werner Hacke; Olav Jansen; Tudor G Jovin; Heinrich P Mattle; Raul G Nogueira; Adnan H Siddiqui; Dileep R Yavagal; Blaise W Baxter; Thomas G Devlin; Demetrius K Lopes; Vivek K Reddy; Richard du Mesnil de Rochemont; Oliver C Singer; Reza Jahan Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Marina Padroni; Sandra Boned; Marc Ribó; Marian Muchada; David Rodriguez-Luna; Pilar Coscojuela; Alejandro Tomasello; Jordi Cabero; Jorge Pagola; Noelia Rodriguez-Villatoro; Jesus M Juega; Estela Sanjuan; Carlos A Molina; Marta Rubiera Journal: Interv Neurol Date: 2016-06-28
Authors: A C Gupta; P W Schaefer; Z A Chaudhry; T M Leslie-Mazwi; R V Chandra; R G González; J A Hirsch; A J Yoo Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-02-09 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Mayank Goyal; Andrew M Demchuk; Bijoy K Menon; Muneer Eesa; Jeremy L Rempel; John Thornton; Daniel Roy; Tudor G Jovin; Robert A Willinsky; Biggya L Sapkota; Dar Dowlatshahi; Donald F Frei; Noreen R Kamal; Walter J Montanera; Alexandre Y Poppe; Karla J Ryckborst; Frank L Silver; Ashfaq Shuaib; Donatella Tampieri; David Williams; Oh Young Bang; Blaise W Baxter; Paul A Burns; Hana Choe; Ji-Hoe Heo; Christine A Holmstedt; Brian Jankowitz; Michael Kelly; Guillermo Linares; Jennifer L Mandzia; Jai Shankar; Sung-Il Sohn; Richard H Swartz; Philip A Barber; Shelagh B Coutts; Eric E Smith; William F Morrish; Alain Weill; Suresh Subramaniam; Alim P Mitha; John H Wong; Mark W Lowerison; Tolulope T Sajobi; Michael D Hill Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-02-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Henry K F Mak; Kelvin K W Yau; Pek-Lan Khong; Alex S C Ching; Pui-Wai Cheng; Paul K M Au-Yeung; Peter K M Pang; Kenny C W Wong; Bernard P L Chan Journal: Stroke Date: 2003-04-10 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Grant Mair; Francesca Chappell; Chloe Martin; David Dye; Philip M Bath; Keith W Muir; Rüdiger von Kummer; Rustam Al-Shahi Salman; Peter A G Sandercock; Malcolm Macleod; Nikola Sprigg; Philip White; Joanna M Wardlaw Journal: AMRC Open Res Date: 2020-04-28