Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 19, 2025

Novel and Innovative Hybrid Technique for Type A Aortic Dissection
Published on: March 28, 2025
Role of Artificial Intelligence in Detecting and Classifying Aortic Dissection: Where Are We? A Systematic Review and
Ashar Asif1, Maha Alsayyari2, Dorothy Monekosso2
1Department of Radiology, Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Anlaby Road, Hull HU3 2JZ, England.
Abstract:
Purpose To evaluate the diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence (AI) models in detecting and classifying aortic dissection (AD) from CT images through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Materials and Methods PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Medline were searched for articles published from January 2010 to October 2023. All primary studies were included. Quality of evidence was assessed using a composite tool based on the METhodological RadiomICs Score (ie, METRICS) and Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (ie, CLAIM) checklists, and risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (ie, QUADAS-2) tool. Univariate and bivariate meta-analyses were performed assessing individual and joint estimates of sensitivity and specificity. Results Thirteen studies were identified, with most using contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) imaging (n = 9) and the remainder using noncontrast CT (NCCT) imaging as their model input. Only three studies presented algorithms classifying AD by Stanford criteria. Univariate analysis of AI detection performance estimated sensitivity at 94% (95% CI: 88, 97; P = .049) and specificity at 88% (95% CI: 79, 94; P < .001). Bivariate analysis showed good overall model performances (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC], 0.97 [95% CI: 0.95, 0.99]; P = .49). Subgroup analyses revealed good performance for models using CECT images (sensitivity, 97% [95% CI: 81, 100; P = .007]; specificity, 93% [95% CI: 87, 97; P < .001]; AUC, 0.98 [95% CI: 0.93, 0.99; P = .09]) and NCCT images (sensitivity, 91% [95% CI: 83, 96; P = .33); specificity, 84% [95% CI: 69, 93; P < .001); AUC, 0.95 [95% CI: 0.90, 0.99; P = .14]). Most studies were of low quality and had high risk of bias. Conclusion AI can feasibly detect AD but does not demonstrate clinical applicability in its current form. Keywords: CT, Vascular, Cardiac, Aorta, Computer-aided Diagnosis (CAD), Meta-Analysis Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2025.
More Related Videos
07:46Author Spotlight: Revolutionizing Remote Surgery with Augmented Reality and Robotics for Enhanced Precision and Accessibility
Published on: August 9, 2024
07:12Author Spotlight: Using Point-of-Care Ultrasound for Comprehensive Evaluation of the Abdominal Aorta
Published on: September 8, 2023
Related Concept Videos
Aneurysm III: Interprofessional Care
Aneurysm II: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Aortic Regurgitation II: Clinical Features and Diagnostic Tests