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.

We conducted a systematic review of the current status of machine learning (ML) algorithms’ ability to identify multiple brain diseases, and we evaluated their applicability for improving existing scan acquisition and interpretation workflows. PubMed Medline, Ovid Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore literature databases were searched for relevant studies published between January 2017 and February 2022. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. The applicability of ML algorithms for successful workflow improvement was qualitatively assessed based on the satisfaction of three clinical requirements. A total of 19 studies were included for qualitative synthesis. The included studies performed classification tasks (n = 12) and segmentation tasks (n = 7). For classification algorithms, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) ranged from 0.765 to 0.997, while accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity ranged from 80% to 100%, 72% to 100%, and 65% to 100%, respectively. For segmentation algorithms, the Dice coefficient ranged from 0.300 to 0.912. No studies satisfied all clinical requirements for successful workflow improvements due to key limitations pertaining to the study’s design, study data, reference standards, and performance reporting. Standardized reporting guidelines tailored for ML in radiology, prospective study designs, and multi-site testing could help alleviate this.