ORACAL: A Robust and Explainable Multimodal Framework for Smart Contract Vulnerability Detection with Causal Graph Enrichment

M. Ali Babar; Phan The Duy; Tran Duong Minh Dai; Triet Huynh Minh Le; Van-Hau Pham

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

A multimodal graph model enriched with retrieved security knowledge and causal attention detects smart-contract bugs better than prior GNN detectors while staying explainable and hard to attack.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-13 16:27 UTC pith:IYP5NCOE

load-bearing objection We only have ORACAL’s abstract; the cached “full text” is a different paper (thrombectomy Delphi), so the SOTA and robustness numbers are unauditable. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.28128 v2 pith:IYP5NCOE submitted 2026-03-30 cs.LG cs.CR

ORACAL: A Robust and Explainable Multimodal Framework for Smart Contract Vulnerability Detection with Causal Graph Enrichment

Tran Duong Minh Dai , Triet Huynh Minh Le , M. Ali Babar , Van-Hau Pham , Phan The Duy This is my paper

classification cs.LG cs.CR

keywords smart contract vulnerability detectionheterogeneous graph neural networksretrieval-augmented generationcausal attentionexplainable AIadversarial robustnesscontrol-flow graphdata-flow graph

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Smart-contract vulnerability detectors based on graph neural networks still miss the joint structure of control flow, data flow, and calls, lack deep security semantics, break under adversarial edits, and give auditors almost no usable explanation. ORACAL builds a single heterogeneous multimodal graph from the control-flow, data-flow, and call graphs of a contract, then selectively injects expert security context from retrieval-augmented generation and large language models into the most critical subgraphs. A causal attention layer is meant to keep only the features that truly drive vulnerability labels, and PGExplainer surfaces the subgraph paths that supposedly trigger the bug. On large benchmarks the method reports state-of-the-art Macro F1 (peak 91.28 percent), strong out-of-distribution numbers, modest attack success rates near 3 percent, and subgraph explanations that overlap human-annotated trigger paths at 32.51 percent MIoU. If the claims hold, auditors and automated scanners gain a single pipeline that is more accurate, more robust, and more transparent than existing graph-based tools.

Core claim

The authors claim that combining heterogeneous control-, data-, and call-flow graphs with selective RAG/LLM enrichment of critical subgraphs and a causal attention mechanism produces a detector that simultaneously raises Macro F1 by large margins over MANDO-HGT, MTVHunter, GNN-SC and SCVHunter, generalizes to out-of-distribution contracts, resists common adversarial attacks, and yields subgraph-level explanations of vulnerability trigger paths.

What carries the argument

ORACAL: a heterogeneous multimodal graph (CFG + DFG + CG) that is selectively enriched by RAG/LLM security context and scored by causal attention, with PGExplainer producing the final vulnerability-triggering subgraphs.

Load-bearing premise

That the RAG/LLM text injected into “critical” subgraphs plus the causal attention layer really isolate causal vulnerability signals rather than dataset-specific or label-correlated text shortcuts.

What would settle it

An ablation or controlled attack that removes or replaces the RAG/LLM enrichment and causal attention while holding the graph structure fixed; if Macro F1 and attack-success-rate collapse to the level of plain heterogeneous GNN baselines, the claimed causal isolation fails.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

We only have ORACAL’s abstract; the cached “full text” is a different paper (thrombectomy Delphi), so the SOTA and robustness numbers are unauditable.

read the letter

The one thing you need to know: the body we were given is not ORACAL. Metadata points at 2603.28128 (smart-contract GNN+RAG detection), but the manuscript text is the START position statement on endovascular testbeds (2603.28129). So this is abstract-only for the work you asked about.

On the abstract alone, what is new is a systems package, not a new learning principle. They fuse CFG, DFG, and CG into a heterogeneous multimodal graph, selectively inject RAG/LLM security context into “critical” subgraphs, add a causal attention layer, and use PGExplainer for path-level explanations. That is a legitimate engineering synthesis aimed at detection, OOD transfer, explainability, and adversarial robustness in one stack. The reported numbers are large if true: Macro F1 91.28%, up to +39.6 pp over MANDO-HGT / MTVHunter / GNN-SC / SCVHunter, OOD 91.8% / 77.1%, MIoU 32.51% vs hand-annotated trigger paths, and ~2.35% F1 drop with 3% ASR under attack.

The soft spots are proportional to the evidence gap, not invented. We cannot check splits, label quality, enrichment policy, how “causal” attention is identified, attack construction, or whether LLM text is just a label-correlated shortcut. The load-bearing claim—that selective RAG plus causal attention disentangles true vulnerability indicators from spurious correlations—has no independent support in what we can read. MIoU of 32.51% is also modest for “explainable evidence” in audits; that may be fine, but it needs the annotation protocol and baselines. Citation pattern and math cannot be judged from the abstract.

Who this is for: blockchain security / smart-contract ML people, if and when the real paper, code, and data appear. Not for a reading group yet. A serious editor would send a complete matching manuscript with those claims to referees rather than desk-reject on topic alone; as currently packaged (wrong full text), it is not reviewable. Engage only after the correct PDF and artifacts land. Do not cite or rely on the numbers until then.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The submission under review is titled ORACAL and, from the abstract, claims a heterogeneous multimodal GNN framework for smart-contract vulnerability detection that fuses CFG, DFG, and CG, selectively enriches critical subgraphs via RAG/LLMs, applies causal attention to separate true vulnerability indicators from spurious correlations, and uses PGExplainer for path-level explanations. It reports SOTA Macro F1 of 91.28% (gains up to 39.6 pp over MANDO-HGT, MTVHunter, GNN-SC, SCVHunter), OOD scores of 91.8%/77.1%, MIoU 32.51% against manual trigger paths, and strong adversarial robustness (~2.35% F1 drop, ASR 3%). However, the full manuscript body supplied for review is an unrelated Position Statement on endovascular testbeds and effectiveness metrics for mechanical thrombectomy (START / arXiv 2603.28129), not the ORACAL methods paper. No ORACAL architecture, datasets, training protocol, causal identification strategy, ablations, attack definitions, or explanation protocol appear in the provided full text.

Significance. If the abstract claims held under a correct, auditable manuscript, ORACAL would be a meaningful contribution to smart-contract security: multimodal heterogeneous graphs plus RAG enrichment, causal attention, and subgraph explanations address known GNN limitations (homogeneous graphs, weak semantics, black-box decisions, adversarial fragility). Large reported lifts and low ASR would matter for audit tooling. As submitted, that significance cannot be assessed: the body is a different paper, so none of the empirical or methodological claims are supported by the document under review.

major comments (3)

Manuscript identity mismatch (title/abstract vs full text): The abstract and paper_id describe ORACAL (smart-contract vulnerability detection, cs.LG). The full body is the START position statement on AI-assisted robotic thrombectomy testbeds and metrics (arXiv 2603.28129, clinical/robotics). No ORACAL methods, equations, datasets, tables, or figures exist in the provided full text. Central claims (91.28% Macro F1, ≤39.6 pp gains, causal disentanglement, MIoU 32.51%, ASR 3%) are therefore unauditable. This is load-bearing: the submission package does not contain the work being claimed.
Causal attention / RAG enrichment (abstract only): The abstract asserts that causal attention 'disentangle[s] true vulnerability indicators from spurious correlations' and that selective RAG/LLM enrichment of critical subgraphs supplies expert security context. No identification assumptions, intervention design, confounder handling, or ablations appear in the supplied body (which is not ORACAL). Without those, the causal claim cannot be distinguished from injection of label-correlated text features or dataset shortcuts—the weakest load-bearing assumption of the claimed contribution.
Experimental protocol and baselines (abstract only): SOTA comparisons to MANDO-HGT, MTVHunter, GNN-SC, and SCVHunter, OOD numbers (CGT Weakness, DAppScan), PGExplainer MIoU against 'manually annotated vulnerability triggering paths,' and adversarial ASR/F1 drop are stated without splits, label sources, attack construction, enrichment policy, or statistical detail in any available section. These results cannot be verified or stress-tested from the document provided.

minor comments (2)

Even on the abstract alone, free parameters (critical-subgraph selection policy, causal-attention hyperparameters, PGExplainer size/threshold for MIoU) are unnamed; a correct resubmission should specify them and report sensitivity.
If a correct ORACAL manuscript is resubmitted, require full ablations (w/o RAG, w/o causal attention, homogeneous vs heterogeneous graphs), leakage checks for LLM-enriched features, and precise attack definitions for the reported ASR.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: ORACAL claims are empirical SOTA comparisons; supplied full text is a mismatched Delphi position statement with no self-referential math.

full rationale

The target paper (ORACAL, 2603.28128) is a supervised multimodal GNN detection methods paper. Its strongest claims are empirical Macro-F1 / ASR numbers against named baselines, not first-principles derivations. The only available ORACAL text is the abstract, which asserts RAG/LLM subgraph enrichment, causal attention, and PGExplainer explanations but contains no equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, uniqueness theorems, or self-definitional loops. The CACHEABLE full manuscript is a different paper (START thrombectomy Delphi position statement, 2603.28129): a consensus methods document that standardizes testbeds and metrics via expert rounds; it likewise advances no predictive identity that reduces to its inputs. Per hard rules, absence of a quotable reduction to inputs yields score 0 with empty steps. Residual risks (train/test leakage, label-correlated RAG text, causal identification) are correctness/generalization concerns, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

Abstract-only review of a systems/ML paper. Load-bearing premises are design and evaluation assumptions rather than free physical constants. No formal axioms are proved; the claim rests on graph construction fidelity, RAG/LLM enrichment quality, causal attention’s ability to remove spurious cues, and the validity of the benchmarks and attack model.

free parameters (3)

Critical-subgraph selection / enrichment policy
Which subgraphs are enriched and how much RAG/LLM text is injected is a design choice that can dominate accuracy; not fixed by theory in the abstract.
Causal attention hyperparameters and architecture
Attention design and any temperature/thresholding that separates “causal” from “spurious” edges are free modeling knobs.
PGExplainer explanation size / threshold for MIoU
Explainer sparsity and matching rules to human paths affect the reported 32.51% MIoU.

axioms (4)

domain assumption CFG + DFG + CG jointly encode the vulnerability-relevant structure of smart contracts better than homogeneous graphs.
Stated motivation in the abstract; standard in program analysis but not proved here.
ad hoc to paper RAG/LLM-injected expert security context improves detection without introducing systematic label leakage or hallucinated features.
Core enrichment step; abstract asserts benefit without independent verification in available text.
ad hoc to paper Causal attention disentangles true vulnerability indicators from spurious correlations.
Central methodological claim; treated as given for the robustness narrative.
domain assumption Named benchmarks and adversarial attack protocol are fair and representative of real audit/adversary conditions.
Required for SOTA and ASR claims; not inspectable from abstract alone.

invented entities (1)

ORACAL framework (Observable RAG-enhanced Analysis with CausAL reasoning) no independent evidence
purpose: Name the combined multimodal graph + RAG/LLM + causal attention + PGExplainer pipeline for smart-contract vulnerability detection.
System name packaging known components; independent evidence would be released code and external replications, not present here.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 17600 in / 2756 out tokens · 33596 ms · 2026-07-13T16:27:20.390231+00:00 · methodology

0 comments

read the original abstract

Although Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have shown promise for smart contract vulnerability detection, they still face significant limitations. Homogeneous graph models fail to capture the interplay between control flow and data dependencies, while heterogeneous graph approaches often lack deep semantic understanding, leaving them susceptible to adversarial attacks. Moreover, most black-box models fail to provide explainable evidence, hindering trust in professional audits. To address these challenges, we propose ORACAL (Observable RAG-enhanced Analysis with CausAL reasoning), a heterogeneous multimodal graph learning framework that integrates Control Flow Graph (CFG), Data Flow Graph (DFG), and Call Graph (CG). ORACAL selectively enriches critical subgraphs with expert-level security context from Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) and Large Language Models (LLMs), and employs a causal attention mechanism to disentangle true vulnerability indicators from spurious correlations. For transparency, the framework adopts PGExplainer to generate subgraph-level explanations identifying vulnerability triggering paths. Experiments on large-scale datasets demonstrate that ORACAL achieves state-of-the-art performance, outperforming MANDO-HGT, MTVHunter, GNN-SC, and SCVHunter by up to 39.6 percentage points, with a peak Macro F1 of 91.28% on the primary benchmark. ORACAL maintains strong generalization on out-of-distribution datasets with 91.8% on CGT Weakness and 77.1% on DAppScan. In explainability evaluation, PGExplainer achieves 32.51% Mean Intersection over Union (MIoU) against manually annotated vulnerability triggering paths. Under adversarial attacks, ORACAL limits performance degradation to approximately 2.35% F1 decrease with an Attack Success Rate (ASR) of only 3%, surpassing SCVHunter and MANDO-HGT which exhibit ASRs ranging from 10.91% to 18.73%.

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

Dirac branch-cut modes with relativistic transport
physics.optics 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 6.0

Dirac branch-cut (DBC) modes are traveling defect states along branch cuts in a complex Dirac mass, obeying a 1D Dirac equation with phase-controlled reduced mass, demonstrated in acoustic metamaterials.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Valery L Feigin et al. Global, regional, and national burden of stroke and its risk factors, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2019.The Lancet Neurology, 20:795–820, 10 2021

1990
[2]

Theo V os et al. Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2019.The Lancet, 396:1204–1222, 10 2020

1990
[3]

Nogueira et al

Raul G. Nogueira et al. Thrombectomy 6 to 24 hours after stroke with a mismatch between deficit and infarct. New England Journal of Medicine, 378:11–21, 1 2018. 15 Position Statement on AI in Autonomous Mechanical Thrombectomy

2018
[4]

Endovascular thrombectomy after large-vessel ischaemic stroke: A meta-analysis of individual patient data from five randomised trials.The Lancet, 387:1723–1731, 4 2016

Mayank Goyal et al. Endovascular thrombectomy after large-vessel ischaemic stroke: A meta-analysis of individual patient data from five randomised trials.The Lancet, 387:1723–1731, 4 2016

2016
[5]

Endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischaemic stroke with established large infarct: multicentre, open-label, randomised trial.The Lancet, 11 2023

Martin Bendszus et al. Endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischaemic stroke with established large infarct: multicentre, open-label, randomised trial.The Lancet, 11 2023

2023
[6]

Albers et al

Gregory W. Albers et al. Thrombectomy for stroke at 6 to 16 hours with selection by perfusion imaging.New England Journal of Medicine, 378:708–718, 2 2018

2018
[7]

Saver et al

Jeffrey L. Saver et al. Time to treatment with endovascular thrombectomy and outcomes from ischemic stroke: Ameta-analysis.JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association, 316:1279–1288, 9 2016

2016
[8]

SSNAP annual report 2023, 2023

Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme. SSNAP annual report 2023, 2023

2023
[9]

Estimating the number of uk stroke patients eligible for endovascular thrombectomy

Peter McMeekin et al. Estimating the number of uk stroke patients eligible for endovascular thrombectomy. European stroke journal, 2:319–326, 12 2017

2017
[10]

Asif et al

Kaiz S. Asif et al. Mechanical thrombectomy global access for stroke (mt-glass): A mission thrombectomy (mt-2020 plus) study.Circulation, 147:1208–1220, 4 2023

2020
[11]

Hub-and-spoke model for thrombectomy service in uk nhs practice.Clinical Medicine, Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London, 21:E26–E31, 1 2021

Liqun Zhang et al. Hub-and-spoke model for thrombectomy service in uk nhs practice.Clinical Medicine, Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London, 21:E26–E31, 1 2021

2021
[12]

Regenhardt et al

Robert W. Regenhardt et al. Delays in the air or ground transfer of patients for endovascular thrombectomy. Stroke, 49:1419–1425, 2018

2018
[13]

Berkhemer et al

Olvert A. Berkhemer et al. A randomized trial of intraarterial treatment for acute ischemic stroke.New England Journal of Medicine, 372:11–20, 1 2015

2015
[14]

Occupational health hazards in the interventional laboratory: Time for a safer environment

Lloyd W Klein et al. Occupational health hazards in the interventional laboratory: Time for a safer environment. Society of Interventional Radiology, 250:538–544, 2 2009

2009
[15]

Ionizing radiation absorption of vascular surgeons during endovascular procedures.Journal of V ascular Surgery, 46:455–459, 9 2007

Pei Ho et al. Ionizing radiation absorption of vascular surgeons during endovascular procedures.Journal of V ascular Surgery, 46:455–459, 9 2007

2007
[16]

Madder et al

Ryan D. Madder et al. Impact of robotics and a suspended lead suit on physician radiation exposure during percutaneous coronary intervention.Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine, 18:190–196, 4 2017

2017
[17]

Robotics in neurointerventional surgery: a systematic review of the literature.Journal of neurointerventional surgery, 14:539–545, 6 2022

William Crinnion et al. Robotics in neurointerventional surgery: a systematic review of the literature.Journal of neurointerventional surgery, 14:539–545, 6 2022

2022
[18]

Yusuf Ahmad et al. Erratum: Geospatial and socioeconomic disparities in access to ir care in the united states (journal of vascular and interventional radiology (2024) 35(2) (293–300.e3), (s1051044323007893), (10.1016/j.jvir.2023.10.021)).Journal of V ascular and Interventional Radiology, 35:e87–e97, 11 2024

doi:10.1016/j.jvir.2023.10.021)).journal 2024
[19]

Riga et al

Celia V . Riga et al. The role of robotic endovascular catheters in fenestrated stent grafting.Journal of V ascular Surgery, 51:810–820, 4 2010

2010
[20]

First-in-human, robotic-assisted neuroendovascular intervention.J NeuroIntervent Surg, 12:338–340, 2020

Mendes Pereira et al. First-in-human, robotic-assisted neuroendovascular intervention.J NeuroIntervent Surg, 12:338–340, 2020

2020
[21]

Robotic-assisted intracranial aneurysm treatment: 1 year follow-up imaging and clinical outcomes.Journal of neurointerventional surgery, 14:1229–1233, 12 2022

Nicole Mariantonia Cancelliere et al. Robotic-assisted intracranial aneurysm treatment: 1 year follow-up imaging and clinical outcomes.Journal of neurointerventional surgery, 14:1229–1233, 12 2022

2022
[22]

The effect of human autonomy and robot work pace on perceived workload in human-robot collaborative assembly work.Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 10, 2023

Wietse van Dijk et al. The effect of human autonomy and robot work pace on perceived workload in human-robot collaborative assembly work.Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 10, 2023

2023
[23]

Iqbal H. Sarker. Machine learning: Algorithms, real-world applications and research directions.SN Computer Science, 2, 5 2021

2021
[24]

Mirnezami and A

R. Mirnezami and A. Ahmed. Surgery 3.0, artificial intelligence and the next-generation surgeon.British Journal of Surgery, 105:463–465, 4 2018

2018
[25]

Artificial intelligence in the autonomous navigation of endovascular interventions: a systematic review.Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 17, 8 2023

Harry Robertshaw et al. Artificial intelligence in the autonomous navigation of endovascular interventions: a systematic review.Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 17, 8 2023

2023
[26]

Oxford centre for evidence-based medicine 2011 levels of evidence.Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, 2011

Jeremy Howick et al. Oxford centre for evidence-based medicine 2011 levels of evidence.Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, 2011

2011
[27]

Technology readiness level - a white paper, 4 1995

John Mankins. Technology readiness level - a white paper, 4 1995

1995
[28]

Validation studies of virtual reality simulation performance metrics for mechanical thrombectomy in ischemic stroke.Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery, 11:775–780, 8 2019

Robert Crossley et al. Validation studies of virtual reality simulation performance metrics for mechanical thrombectomy in ischemic stroke.Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery, 11:775–780, 8 2019. 16 Position Statement on AI in Autonomous Mechanical Thrombectomy

2019
[29]

Prinsen et al

Cecilia A.C. Prinsen et al. Core outcome measures in effectiveness trials (comet) initiative: Protocol for an international delphi study to achieve consensus on how to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a ’core outcome set’.Trials, 15, 6 2014

2014
[30]

Europarat Council of Europe. Developing a methodology for drawing up guidelines on best medical practices - recommendation rec13 and explanatory memorandum (2002).Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publications, 2002

2002
[31]

A critical review of the delphi technique as a research methodology for nursing.International Journal of Nursing Studies, 2001

Sinead Keeney, Felicity Hasson, and Hugh P Mckenna. A critical review of the delphi technique as a research methodology for nursing.International Journal of Nursing Studies, 2001

2001
[32]

Research guidelines for the delphi survey technique

Felicity Hasson, Sinead Keeney, and Hugh McKenna. Research guidelines for the delphi survey technique. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32:1008–1015, 2000

2000
[33]

Sinha, Rosalind L

Ian P. Sinha, Rosalind L. Smyth, and Paula R. Williamson. Using the delphi technique to determine which outcomes to measure in clinical trials: Recommendations for the future based on a systematic review of existing studies.PLoS Medicine, 8, 2011

2011
[34]

Harry Robertshaw et al. Reinforcement learning for safe autonomous two device navigation of cerebral vessels in mechanical thrombectomy.International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, 2025

2025
[35]

Zaidat et al

Osama O. Zaidat et al. Recommendations on angiographic revascularization grading standards for acute ischemic stroke: A consensus statement.Stroke, 44:2650–2663, 9 2013

2013
[36]

Liebeskind et al

David S. Liebeskind et al. Etici reperfusion: Defining success in endovascular stroke therapy.Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery, 11:433–438, 5 2019

2019
[37]

Exploring product complexity and prototype lead-times to predict new product development cycle-times.International Journal of Production Economics, 235, 5 2021

Rubén Darío Solarte Bolaños and Sanderson César Macêdo Barbalho. Exploring product complexity and prototype lead-times to predict new product development cycle-times.International Journal of Production Economics, 235, 5 2021

2021
[38]

Learning-based autonomous navigation, benchmark environments and simulation framework for endovascular interventions.arXiv preprint, 10 2024

Lennart Karstensen et al. Learning-based autonomous navigation, benchmark environments and simulation framework for endovascular interventions.arXiv preprint, 10 2024

2024
[39]

Synthetic vascular models : Application to bifurcation classification and aneurysm detection.Pattern Recognition

Rafic Nader, Romain Bourcier, and Florent Autrusseau. Synthetic vascular models : Application to bifurcation classification and aneurysm detection.Pattern Recognition. ICPR 2024, 2024

2024
[40]

Quality-dependent deep learning for safe autonomous guidewire navigation

Jacqueline Ritter et al. Quality-dependent deep learning for safe autonomous guidewire navigation. InCurrent Directions in Biomedical Engineering, volume 8, pages 21–24. Walter de Gruyter GmbH, 7 2022

2022
[41]

Comparative verification of control methodology for robotic interventional neuroradiology procedures.International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, 2023

Benjamin Jackson et al. Comparative verification of control methodology for robotic interventional neuroradiology procedures.International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, 2023

2023
[42]

Reducing contact forces in the arch and supra-aortic vessels using the magellan robot

Hedyeh Rafii-Tari et al. Reducing contact forces in the arch and supra-aortic vessels using the magellan robot. In Journal of V ascular Surgery, volume 64, pages 1422–1432. Mosby Inc., 11 2016

2016
[43]

Collaborative robot-assisted endovascular catheterization with generative adversarial imitation learning

Wenqiang Chi et al. Collaborative robot-assisted endovascular catheterization with generative adversarial imitation learning. InIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 2414–2420, 2020

2020
[44]

A sensorized modular training platform to reduce vascular damage in endovascular surgery

Nikola Fischer et al. A sensorized modular training platform to reduce vascular damage in endovascular surgery. International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, 18:1687–1695, 9 2023

2023
[45]

Deaton et al

Nancy J. Deaton et al. Simultaneous shape and tip force sensing for the coast guidewire robot.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 8:3725–3731, 6 2023

2023
[46]

Development of a force sensor for a neuroendovascular intervention support robot system

Hiroki Tadauchi et al. Development of a force sensor for a neuroendovascular intervention support robot system. Journal of Robotics and Mechatronics, 34:1297–1305, 12 2022

2022
[47]

Process and systems a systems approach to healthcare: from thinking to practice.Future Healthcare Journal, 5:151–156, 2018

John Clarkson et al. Process and systems a systems approach to healthcare: from thinking to practice.Future Healthcare Journal, 5:151–156, 2018

2018
[48]

Janet Bouttell, Andrew Briggs, and Neil Hawkins. A different animal? identifying the features of health technology assessment for developers of medical technologies.International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 36(4):285–291, 2020

2020
[49]

Developing a reference protocol for structured expert elicitation in health-care decision-making: a mixed-methods study.Health Technology Assessment, 25(37):1–124, June 2021

Laura Bojke et al. Developing a reference protocol for structured expert elicitation in health-care decision-making: a mixed-methods study.Health Technology Assessment, 25(37):1–124, June 2021. Funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and the Medical Research Council (MR/N028511/1)

2021
[50]

Kyriakos Lobotesis et al. Cost-effectiveness of stent-retriever thrombectomy in combination with iv t-pa compared with iv t-pa alone for acute ischemic stroke in the uk.Journal of Medical Economics, 19:785–794, 8 2016

2016
[51]

The pace of artificial intelligence innovations: Speed, talent, and trial-and-error.Journal of Informetrics, 14, 11 2020

Xuli Tang et al. The pace of artificial intelligence innovations: Speed, talent, and trial-and-error.Journal of Informetrics, 14, 11 2020. 17 Position Statement on AI in Autonomous Mechanical Thrombectomy

2020
[52]

Simulation training in neuroangiography—validation and effectiveness.Clinical Neurora- diology, 31:465–473, 6 2021

Kornelia Kreiser et al. Simulation training in neuroangiography—validation and effectiveness.Clinical Neurora- diology, 31:465–473, 6 2021

2021
[53]

safe stop/withdraw

Yucheng Peng et al. Feasibility and safety of stanford a aortic dissection complete endovascular repair system in a porcine model.BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, 23, 12 2023. 18 Position Statement on AI in Autonomous Mechanical Thrombectomy Supplementary Table4: Example proposed technical, clinical, economic, and regulatory milestones for safe translation o...

2023

[1] [1]

Valery L Feigin et al. Global, regional, and national burden of stroke and its risk factors, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2019.The Lancet Neurology, 20:795–820, 10 2021

1990

[2] [2]

Theo V os et al. Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2019.The Lancet, 396:1204–1222, 10 2020

1990

[3] [3]

Nogueira et al

Raul G. Nogueira et al. Thrombectomy 6 to 24 hours after stroke with a mismatch between deficit and infarct. New England Journal of Medicine, 378:11–21, 1 2018. 15 Position Statement on AI in Autonomous Mechanical Thrombectomy

2018

[4] [4]

Endovascular thrombectomy after large-vessel ischaemic stroke: A meta-analysis of individual patient data from five randomised trials.The Lancet, 387:1723–1731, 4 2016

Mayank Goyal et al. Endovascular thrombectomy after large-vessel ischaemic stroke: A meta-analysis of individual patient data from five randomised trials.The Lancet, 387:1723–1731, 4 2016

2016

[5] [5]

Endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischaemic stroke with established large infarct: multicentre, open-label, randomised trial.The Lancet, 11 2023

Martin Bendszus et al. Endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischaemic stroke with established large infarct: multicentre, open-label, randomised trial.The Lancet, 11 2023

2023

[6] [6]

Albers et al

Gregory W. Albers et al. Thrombectomy for stroke at 6 to 16 hours with selection by perfusion imaging.New England Journal of Medicine, 378:708–718, 2 2018

2018

[7] [7]

Saver et al

Jeffrey L. Saver et al. Time to treatment with endovascular thrombectomy and outcomes from ischemic stroke: Ameta-analysis.JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association, 316:1279–1288, 9 2016

2016

[8] [8]

SSNAP annual report 2023, 2023

Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme. SSNAP annual report 2023, 2023

2023

[9] [9]

Estimating the number of uk stroke patients eligible for endovascular thrombectomy

Peter McMeekin et al. Estimating the number of uk stroke patients eligible for endovascular thrombectomy. European stroke journal, 2:319–326, 12 2017

2017

[10] [10]

Asif et al

Kaiz S. Asif et al. Mechanical thrombectomy global access for stroke (mt-glass): A mission thrombectomy (mt-2020 plus) study.Circulation, 147:1208–1220, 4 2023

2020

[11] [11]

Hub-and-spoke model for thrombectomy service in uk nhs practice.Clinical Medicine, Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London, 21:E26–E31, 1 2021

Liqun Zhang et al. Hub-and-spoke model for thrombectomy service in uk nhs practice.Clinical Medicine, Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London, 21:E26–E31, 1 2021

2021

[12] [12]

Regenhardt et al

Robert W. Regenhardt et al. Delays in the air or ground transfer of patients for endovascular thrombectomy. Stroke, 49:1419–1425, 2018

2018

[13] [13]

Berkhemer et al

Olvert A. Berkhemer et al. A randomized trial of intraarterial treatment for acute ischemic stroke.New England Journal of Medicine, 372:11–20, 1 2015

2015

[14] [14]

Occupational health hazards in the interventional laboratory: Time for a safer environment

Lloyd W Klein et al. Occupational health hazards in the interventional laboratory: Time for a safer environment. Society of Interventional Radiology, 250:538–544, 2 2009

2009

[15] [15]

Ionizing radiation absorption of vascular surgeons during endovascular procedures.Journal of V ascular Surgery, 46:455–459, 9 2007

Pei Ho et al. Ionizing radiation absorption of vascular surgeons during endovascular procedures.Journal of V ascular Surgery, 46:455–459, 9 2007

2007

[16] [16]

Madder et al

Ryan D. Madder et al. Impact of robotics and a suspended lead suit on physician radiation exposure during percutaneous coronary intervention.Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine, 18:190–196, 4 2017

2017

[17] [17]

Robotics in neurointerventional surgery: a systematic review of the literature.Journal of neurointerventional surgery, 14:539–545, 6 2022

William Crinnion et al. Robotics in neurointerventional surgery: a systematic review of the literature.Journal of neurointerventional surgery, 14:539–545, 6 2022

2022

[18] [18]

Yusuf Ahmad et al. Erratum: Geospatial and socioeconomic disparities in access to ir care in the united states (journal of vascular and interventional radiology (2024) 35(2) (293–300.e3), (s1051044323007893), (10.1016/j.jvir.2023.10.021)).Journal of V ascular and Interventional Radiology, 35:e87–e97, 11 2024

doi:10.1016/j.jvir.2023.10.021)).journal 2024

[19] [19]

Riga et al

Celia V . Riga et al. The role of robotic endovascular catheters in fenestrated stent grafting.Journal of V ascular Surgery, 51:810–820, 4 2010

2010

[20] [20]

First-in-human, robotic-assisted neuroendovascular intervention.J NeuroIntervent Surg, 12:338–340, 2020

Mendes Pereira et al. First-in-human, robotic-assisted neuroendovascular intervention.J NeuroIntervent Surg, 12:338–340, 2020

2020

[21] [21]

Robotic-assisted intracranial aneurysm treatment: 1 year follow-up imaging and clinical outcomes.Journal of neurointerventional surgery, 14:1229–1233, 12 2022

Nicole Mariantonia Cancelliere et al. Robotic-assisted intracranial aneurysm treatment: 1 year follow-up imaging and clinical outcomes.Journal of neurointerventional surgery, 14:1229–1233, 12 2022

2022

[22] [22]

The effect of human autonomy and robot work pace on perceived workload in human-robot collaborative assembly work.Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 10, 2023

Wietse van Dijk et al. The effect of human autonomy and robot work pace on perceived workload in human-robot collaborative assembly work.Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 10, 2023

2023

[23] [23]

Iqbal H. Sarker. Machine learning: Algorithms, real-world applications and research directions.SN Computer Science, 2, 5 2021

2021

[24] [24]

Mirnezami and A

R. Mirnezami and A. Ahmed. Surgery 3.0, artificial intelligence and the next-generation surgeon.British Journal of Surgery, 105:463–465, 4 2018

2018

[25] [25]

Artificial intelligence in the autonomous navigation of endovascular interventions: a systematic review.Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 17, 8 2023

Harry Robertshaw et al. Artificial intelligence in the autonomous navigation of endovascular interventions: a systematic review.Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 17, 8 2023

2023

[26] [26]

Oxford centre for evidence-based medicine 2011 levels of evidence.Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, 2011

Jeremy Howick et al. Oxford centre for evidence-based medicine 2011 levels of evidence.Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, 2011

2011

[27] [27]

Technology readiness level - a white paper, 4 1995

John Mankins. Technology readiness level - a white paper, 4 1995

1995

[28] [28]

Validation studies of virtual reality simulation performance metrics for mechanical thrombectomy in ischemic stroke.Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery, 11:775–780, 8 2019

Robert Crossley et al. Validation studies of virtual reality simulation performance metrics for mechanical thrombectomy in ischemic stroke.Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery, 11:775–780, 8 2019. 16 Position Statement on AI in Autonomous Mechanical Thrombectomy

2019

[29] [29]

Prinsen et al

Cecilia A.C. Prinsen et al. Core outcome measures in effectiveness trials (comet) initiative: Protocol for an international delphi study to achieve consensus on how to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a ’core outcome set’.Trials, 15, 6 2014

2014

[30] [30]

Europarat Council of Europe. Developing a methodology for drawing up guidelines on best medical practices - recommendation rec13 and explanatory memorandum (2002).Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publications, 2002

2002

[31] [31]

A critical review of the delphi technique as a research methodology for nursing.International Journal of Nursing Studies, 2001

Sinead Keeney, Felicity Hasson, and Hugh P Mckenna. A critical review of the delphi technique as a research methodology for nursing.International Journal of Nursing Studies, 2001

2001

[32] [32]

Research guidelines for the delphi survey technique

Felicity Hasson, Sinead Keeney, and Hugh McKenna. Research guidelines for the delphi survey technique. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32:1008–1015, 2000

2000

[33] [33]

Sinha, Rosalind L

Ian P. Sinha, Rosalind L. Smyth, and Paula R. Williamson. Using the delphi technique to determine which outcomes to measure in clinical trials: Recommendations for the future based on a systematic review of existing studies.PLoS Medicine, 8, 2011

2011

[34] [34]

Harry Robertshaw et al. Reinforcement learning for safe autonomous two device navigation of cerebral vessels in mechanical thrombectomy.International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, 2025

2025

[35] [35]

Zaidat et al

Osama O. Zaidat et al. Recommendations on angiographic revascularization grading standards for acute ischemic stroke: A consensus statement.Stroke, 44:2650–2663, 9 2013

2013

[36] [36]

Liebeskind et al

David S. Liebeskind et al. Etici reperfusion: Defining success in endovascular stroke therapy.Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery, 11:433–438, 5 2019

2019

[37] [37]

Exploring product complexity and prototype lead-times to predict new product development cycle-times.International Journal of Production Economics, 235, 5 2021

Rubén Darío Solarte Bolaños and Sanderson César Macêdo Barbalho. Exploring product complexity and prototype lead-times to predict new product development cycle-times.International Journal of Production Economics, 235, 5 2021

2021

[38] [38]

Learning-based autonomous navigation, benchmark environments and simulation framework for endovascular interventions.arXiv preprint, 10 2024

Lennart Karstensen et al. Learning-based autonomous navigation, benchmark environments and simulation framework for endovascular interventions.arXiv preprint, 10 2024

2024

[39] [39]

Synthetic vascular models : Application to bifurcation classification and aneurysm detection.Pattern Recognition

Rafic Nader, Romain Bourcier, and Florent Autrusseau. Synthetic vascular models : Application to bifurcation classification and aneurysm detection.Pattern Recognition. ICPR 2024, 2024

2024

[40] [40]

Quality-dependent deep learning for safe autonomous guidewire navigation

Jacqueline Ritter et al. Quality-dependent deep learning for safe autonomous guidewire navigation. InCurrent Directions in Biomedical Engineering, volume 8, pages 21–24. Walter de Gruyter GmbH, 7 2022

2022

[41] [41]

Comparative verification of control methodology for robotic interventional neuroradiology procedures.International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, 2023

Benjamin Jackson et al. Comparative verification of control methodology for robotic interventional neuroradiology procedures.International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, 2023

2023

[42] [42]

Reducing contact forces in the arch and supra-aortic vessels using the magellan robot

Hedyeh Rafii-Tari et al. Reducing contact forces in the arch and supra-aortic vessels using the magellan robot. In Journal of V ascular Surgery, volume 64, pages 1422–1432. Mosby Inc., 11 2016

2016

[43] [43]

Collaborative robot-assisted endovascular catheterization with generative adversarial imitation learning

Wenqiang Chi et al. Collaborative robot-assisted endovascular catheterization with generative adversarial imitation learning. InIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 2414–2420, 2020

2020

[44] [44]

A sensorized modular training platform to reduce vascular damage in endovascular surgery

Nikola Fischer et al. A sensorized modular training platform to reduce vascular damage in endovascular surgery. International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, 18:1687–1695, 9 2023

2023

[45] [45]

Deaton et al

Nancy J. Deaton et al. Simultaneous shape and tip force sensing for the coast guidewire robot.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 8:3725–3731, 6 2023

2023

[46] [46]

Development of a force sensor for a neuroendovascular intervention support robot system

Hiroki Tadauchi et al. Development of a force sensor for a neuroendovascular intervention support robot system. Journal of Robotics and Mechatronics, 34:1297–1305, 12 2022

2022

[47] [47]

Process and systems a systems approach to healthcare: from thinking to practice.Future Healthcare Journal, 5:151–156, 2018

John Clarkson et al. Process and systems a systems approach to healthcare: from thinking to practice.Future Healthcare Journal, 5:151–156, 2018

2018

[48] [48]

Janet Bouttell, Andrew Briggs, and Neil Hawkins. A different animal? identifying the features of health technology assessment for developers of medical technologies.International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 36(4):285–291, 2020

2020

[49] [49]

Developing a reference protocol for structured expert elicitation in health-care decision-making: a mixed-methods study.Health Technology Assessment, 25(37):1–124, June 2021

Laura Bojke et al. Developing a reference protocol for structured expert elicitation in health-care decision-making: a mixed-methods study.Health Technology Assessment, 25(37):1–124, June 2021. Funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and the Medical Research Council (MR/N028511/1)

2021

[50] [50]

Kyriakos Lobotesis et al. Cost-effectiveness of stent-retriever thrombectomy in combination with iv t-pa compared with iv t-pa alone for acute ischemic stroke in the uk.Journal of Medical Economics, 19:785–794, 8 2016

2016

[51] [51]

The pace of artificial intelligence innovations: Speed, talent, and trial-and-error.Journal of Informetrics, 14, 11 2020

Xuli Tang et al. The pace of artificial intelligence innovations: Speed, talent, and trial-and-error.Journal of Informetrics, 14, 11 2020. 17 Position Statement on AI in Autonomous Mechanical Thrombectomy

2020

[52] [52]

Simulation training in neuroangiography—validation and effectiveness.Clinical Neurora- diology, 31:465–473, 6 2021

Kornelia Kreiser et al. Simulation training in neuroangiography—validation and effectiveness.Clinical Neurora- diology, 31:465–473, 6 2021

2021

[53] [53]

safe stop/withdraw

Yucheng Peng et al. Feasibility and safety of stanford a aortic dissection complete endovascular repair system in a porcine model.BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, 23, 12 2023. 18 Position Statement on AI in Autonomous Mechanical Thrombectomy Supplementary Table4: Example proposed technical, clinical, economic, and regulatory milestones for safe translation o...

2023