Jens Sørensen
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Research Interests
Jens Sørensen has a total of 7 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Akshay Pai
Department of Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
1 shared publication - Annika Reynberg Langkilde
Department of Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
1 shared publication - Cecilie Mørck Offersen
Department of Radiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
1 shared publication - Jonathan Frederik Carlsen
Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, 2200 Copenhagen, Denmark
1 shared publication - Kaining Sheng
Department of Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
1 shared publication - Michael Bachmann Nielsen
Department of Radiology, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 19 June 2023
- Published by MDPI AG in Diagnostics
- Vol. 13 (12) , 2111
Artificial Intelligence for Automated DWI/FLAIR Mismatch Assessment on Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Stroke: A Systematic Review
We conducted this Systematic Review to create an overview of the currently existing Artificial Intelligence (AI) methods for Magnetic Resonance Diffusion-Weighted Imaging (DWI)/Fluid-Attenuated Inversion Recovery (FLAIR)—mismatch assessment and to determine how well DWI/FLAIR mismatch algorithms perform compared to domain experts. We searched PubMed Medline, Ovid Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, and IEEE Xplore literature databases for relevant studies published between 1 January 2017 and 20 November 2022, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We assessed the included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Five studies fit the scope of this review. The area under the curve ranged from 0.74 to 0.90. The sensitivity and specificity ranged from 0.70 to 0.85 and 0.74 to 0.84, respectively. Negative predictive value, positive predictive value, and accuracy ranged from 0.55 to 0.82, 0.74 to 0.91, and 0.73 to 0.83, respectively. In a binary classification of ±4.5 h from stroke onset, the surveyed AI methods performed equivalent to or even better than domain experts. However, using the relation between time since stroke onset (TSS) and increasing visibility of FLAIR hyperintensity lesions is not recommended for the determination of TSS within the first 4.5 h. An AI algorithm on DWI/FLAIR mismatch assessment focused on treatment eligibility, outcome prediction, and consideration of patient-specific data could potentially increase the proportion of stroke patients with unknown onset who could be treated with thrombolysis.
- 19 June 2023
- Published by MDPI AG in Diagnostics
- Vol. 13 (12) , 2111
Open AccessArtificial Intelligence for Automated DWI/FLAIR Mismatch Assessment on Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Stroke: A Systematic Review
We conducted this Systematic Review to create an overview of the currently existing Artificial Intelligence (AI) methods for Magnetic Resonance Diffusion-Weighted Imaging (DWI)/Fluid-Attenuated Inversion Recovery (FLAIR)—mismatch assessment and to determine how well DWI/FLAIR mismatch algorithms perform compared to domain experts. We searched PubMed Medline, Ovid Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, and IEEE Xplore literature databases for relevant studies published between 1 January 2017 and 20 November 2022, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We assessed the included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Five studies fit the scope of this review. The area under the curve ranged from 0.74 to 0.90. The sensitivity and specificity ranged from 0.70 to 0.85 and 0.74 to 0.84, respectively. Negative predictive value, positive predictive value, and accuracy ranged from 0.55 to 0.82, 0.74 to 0.91, and 0.73 to 0.83, respectively. In a binary classification of ±4.5 h from stroke onset, the surveyed AI methods performed equivalent to or even better than domain experts. However, using the relation between time since stroke onset (TSS) and increasing visibility of FLAIR hyperintensity lesions is not recommended for the determination of TSS within the first 4.5 h. An AI algorithm on DWI/FLAIR mismatch assessment focused on treatment eligibility, outcome prediction, and consideration of patient-specific data could potentially increase the proportion of stroke patients with unknown onset who could be treated with thrombolysis.