Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Both tools successfully detected most anterior circulation occlusions. RAPID LVO had higher sensitivity while CINA LVO had higher accuracy and specificity. Interestingly, both tools were able to detect some, but not all M2 MCA occlusions. This is the first study to compare traditional and deep learning LVO tools in the clinical setting.
Schlossman et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: