The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of diffusion-weighted MRI and CT in acute stroke
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) and CT with respect to accuracy of localizing acute cerebral infarction; sensitivity, specificity, and interrater reliability for identifying more than one-third middle cerebral artery (MCA) territory involvement; and correlation of acute lesion volume with final infarct volume. METHOD: Nineteen consecutive stroke patients underwent CT and DWI within 7 hours of stroke onset and a follow-up DWI examination 36 hours after symptom onset, which served as the "gold standard" for lesion location and extent of MCA involvement. Each scan was evaluated for acute ischemic lesions by two experienced observers. After 30 days, T2-weighted MRI was obtained for assessment of the final infarct volume. RESULTS: The acute CT and DWI scans were obtained on average 2.6 and 5.1 hours after symptom onset. On DWI the acute lesion was identified correctly in all instances and on CT it was identified correctly in 42 to 63% of patients. Sensitivity for detection of more than 33% MCA involvement was better for DWI (57 to 86%) than for CT (14 to 43%), whereas specificity was excellent for both. Interrater reliability was moderately good for both (kappa, 0.6 for DWI; 0.5 for CT). A positive correlation (r = 0.79; p = 0.001) existed between lesion volume on acute DWI and final infarct volume, whereas no correlation was found between CT volume and final infarct volume. CONCLUSION: When compared with CT, DWI was more accurate for identifying acute infarction and more sensitive for detection of more than 33% MCA involvement. In addition, lesion volume on acute DWI, but not on acute CT, correlated strongly with final infarct volume. Additional studies are required to demonstrate whether these advantages of DWI are clinically relevant in the management of patients with acute stroke.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Fast magnetic resonance diffusion-weighted imaging of acute human stroke
Warach, S., Chien, D., Li, W., Ronthal, M., & Edelman, R. R. (1992) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.42.9.1717 · Cited by 881
Cited by
Flowers, H. L., Silver, F. L., Fang, J., Rochon, E., & Martino, R. (2013) · Journal of Communication Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2013.04.001 · Cited by 249
Guidelines and evaluation of clinical explainable AI in medical image analysis
Jin, W., Li, X., Fatehi, M., & Hamarneh, G. (2023) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2022.102684 · Cited by 199
Merino, J. G., & Warach, S. (2010) · Nature Reviews Neurology · doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2010.129 · Cited by 152
Evidence of white matter tract disruption in MRI hyperintensities
Taylor, W. D., Payne, M. E., Krishnan, K. R. R., Wagner, H. R., Provenzale, J. M., Steffens, D. C., & MacFall, J. R. (2001) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s0006-3223(01)01160-x · Cited by 134
Metadata
- Authors
- Lansberg, M. G., Albers, G. W., Beaulieu, C., & Marks, M. P.
- Venue
- Neurology
- Published
- 2000-04-25
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1557-1561
- ISSN
- 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-632X
- OpenAlex
- W2023766166
- Cited by
- 299
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 15.46
- 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: Comparison of diffusion-weighted MRI and CT in acute stroke. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1212/wnl.54.8.1557
- The paper
- Lansberg, M. G., Albers, G. W., Beaulieu, C., & Marks, M. P. (2000). Comparison of diffusion-weighted MRI and CT in acute stroke. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.54.8.1557
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.