Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 332

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Intracranial Aneurysms: CT Angiography and MR Angiography for Detection—Prospective Blinded Comparison in a Large Patient Cohort

White, Philip M., Teasdale, Evelyn M., Wardlaw, Joanna M., Easton, Valerie·2001·Radiology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare computed tomographic (CT) angiography and magnetic resonance (MR) angiography with intraarterial digital subtraction angiography (DSA) in the detection of intracranial aneurysms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred forty-two patients underwent intraarterial DSA to detect aneurysms. CT angiography, three-dimensional time-of-flight MR angiography, and intraarterial DSA were performed contemporaneously. Film hard-copy images and maximum intensity projection reconstructions of the CT angiograms and MR angiograms were reviewed at different times. RESULTS: The accuracy per patient for the best observer was 0.87 at CT angiography and 0.85 at MR angiography. The accuracy per aneurysm for the best observer was 0.73 at CT angiography and 0.67 at MR angiography. Differences between readers and modalities were not significant. Interobserver agreement was good: kappa value of 0.73 for CT angiography and of 0.74 for MR angiography. The sensitivity for detection of aneurysms smaller than 5 mm was 0.57 for CT angiography and 0.35 for MR angiography compared with 0.94 and 0.86, respectively, for detection of aneurysms 5 mm or larger. The accuracy of both CT angiography and MR angiography was lower for detection of internal carotid artery aneurysms compared with that at other sites. With low observer confidence, the likelihood of correct interpretation was significantly poorer. CONCLUSION: CT angiography and MR angiography have limited sensitivity in the detection of small aneurysms but good interobserver agreement. There is no significant difference in diagnostic performance between the noninvasive modalities.

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/radiology.219.3.r01ma16739

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

See all 332

Metadata

Authors
White, P. M., Teasdale, E. M., Wardlaw, J. M., & Easton, V.
Venue
Radiology
Published
2001-06
Volume
219
Issue
3
Pages
739-749
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2128774915
Cited by
332
References
1
FWCI
9.95
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: Intracranial Aneurysms: CT Angiography and MR Angiography for Detection—Prospective Blinded Comparison in a Large Patient Cohort. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiology.219.3.r01ma16739
The paper
White, P. M., Teasdale, E. M., Wardlaw, J. M., & Easton, V. (2001). Intracranial Aneurysms: CT Angiography and MR Angiography for Detection—Prospective Blinded Comparison in a Large Patient Cohort. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.219.3.r01ma16739

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.