Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 343

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

CT and Conventional and Diffusion-weighted MR Imaging in Acute Stroke: Study in 691 Patients at Presentation to the Emergency Department

Mullins, Mark E., Schaefer, Pamela W., Sorensen, A. Gregory, Halpern, Elkan F., Ay, Hakan, He, Julian, Koroshetz, Walter J., Gonzalez, R. Gilberto·2002·Radiology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in a consecutive series of patients at presentation to the emergency department with symptoms of acute stroke. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical data and images obtained in 691 consecutive patients with suspected acute stroke were examined. Results of first and second head CT and brain diffusion-weighted (DW) and conventional MR imaging were compared with each other and with the final neurologic discharge diagnosis. RESULTS: Five hundred seventy-three patients underwent CT at presentation, with 42% sensitivity (95% CI: 37%, 46%) and 91% specificity (95% CI: 82%, 96%). A total of 173 patients underwent a second CT examination, with 77% sensitivity (95% CI: 70%, 84%) and 79% specificity (95% CI: 49%, 95%). Of 498 MR images, 411 were DW, with 94% sensitivity (95% CI: 1%, 96%) and 97% specificity (95% CI: 88%, 100%), and 87 were conventional, with 70% sensitivity (95% CI: 58%, 81%) and 94% specificity (95% CI: 70%, 100%). By using DW MR imaging in the early period (<6 hours after presentation to emergency department), a 97% sensitivity (95% CI: 92%, 100%) and a 100% specificity (95% CI: 69%, 100%) were achieved, compared with 58% (29%-84%) and 100% (16%-100%), respectively, with conventional MR imaging, and 40% (35%-45%) and 92% (84%-97%), respectively, with CT. Negative predictive value was higher with DW MR imaging (73%) than with conventional (42%) MR imaging or CT (24%). In studies conducted within 12 hours, DW MR imaging achieved substantially superior accuracy than did CT. After 12 hours, accuracy was equivalent. CONCLUSION: In the diagnosis of stroke in the early period (<12 hours after presentation), DW MR imaging is superior to conventional MR imaging and CT.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1148/radiol.2242010873

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 343

Metadata

Authors
Mullins, M. E., Schaefer, P. W., Sorensen, A. G., Halpern, E. F., Ay, H., He, J., Koroshetz, W. J., & Gonzalez, R. G.
Venue
Radiology
Published
2002-08
Volume
224
Issue
2
Pages
353-360
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2022123720
Cited by
343
References
2
FWCI
9.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: CT and Conventional and Diffusion-weighted MR Imaging in Acute Stroke: Study in 691 Patients at Presentation to the Emergency Department. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.2242010873
The paper
Mullins, M. E., Schaefer, P. W., Sorensen, A. G., Halpern, E. F., Ay, H., He, J., Koroshetz, W. J., & Gonzalez, R. G. (2002). CT and Conventional and Diffusion-weighted MR Imaging in Acute Stroke: Study in 691 Patients at Presentation to the Emergency Department. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2242010873

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.