TABLE 3:
Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and interobserver agreement in assessing stroke extent by ASPECTS score (> 
ASPECTS)
| Imaging Study | ASPECTS Score | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Accuracy (%) | κ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nonenhanced CT | 8.4 ± 1.9 | 42.9 | 67.6 | 62.8 | 0.446 |
| PCT | |||||
| TTP review | 6.9 ± 2.5 | 87.5* | 68.4 | 72.2 | 0.716* |
| MTT review | 7.2 ± 2.3 | 94.4* | 64.1 | 70.0 | 0.763* |
| rCBF review | 7.4 ± 2.3 | 85.7* | 87.2* | 86.9* | 0.691* |
| rCBV review | 7.8 ± 2.1 | 62.5* | 92.1* | 86.3* | 0.669* |
| Computerized automated method | 7.7 ± 2.3 | 72.2* | 91.8* | 87.9* | NA |
| Follow-up | 7.4 ± 2.1 | NA | NA | NA | NA |
Note.—PCT was globally more sensitive, specific, and accurate than nonenhanced CT in correctly classifying large strokes, with significantly increased interobserver agreement. NA indicates not applicable.
* Significantly superior to nonenhanced CT.