Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This position statement establishes consensus frameworks for developing and validating AI-assisted robots for mechanical thrombectomy, addressing the challenge of limited access to timely stroke treatment. It defines reference testbeds across in silico, in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo environments with varying realism requirements, and proposes two macroclasses of effectiveness metrics: technical navigation and clinical outcomes. The taskforce emphasizes the importance of correlating in vitro measurements to in vivo complications to ensure patient safety.
Standardized testbeds and effectiveness metrics could accelerate the development and validation of AI-assisted robotic thrombectomy, potentially revolutionizing stroke treatment accessibility.
Although we are making progress in overcoming infectious diseases and cancer, one of the major medical challenges of the mid‐21st century will be the increasing prevalence of stroke. Occlusions in large vessels are especially debilitating, yet effective treatment—needed within hours to achieve best outcomes—remains limited because of geographic accessibility. One solution for improving timely access to mechanical thrombectomy in geographically diverse populations is the widespread deployment of robotic surgical systems. Artificial intelligence assistance may enable the safe and effective upskilling of operators in this emerging therapeutic delivery approach. Our aim was to establish consensus frameworks for developing and validating artificial intelligence–assisted robots for thrombectomy. Objectives included standardizing effectiveness metrics and defining reference testbeds across in silico, in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo environments. To achieve this, we convened experts in neurointervention, robotics, data science, health economics, policy, statistics, and patient advocacy. Consensus was built through an incubator day, a Delphi process, and a final position statement. We identified that the 4 essential testbed environments each had distinct validation roles. Realism requirements vary: simpler testbeds should include realistic vessel anatomy compatible with guidewire and catheter use, whereas standard testbeds should incorporate deformable vessels. More advanced testbeds should include blood flow, pulsatility, and disease features, such as atheromatous plaques. There are 2 macroclasses of effectiveness metrics: one for in silico, in vitro, and ex vivo stages focusing on technical navigation (eg, path‐following error), and another for in vivo stages, focused on clinical outcomes (eg, modified treatment in cerebral infarction scores). Patient safety is central, and not a barrier, to this technology's development. One requisite patient safety task needed now is to correlate in vitro measurements to in vivo complications.
