Compare ยท Avicenna.AI CINA
Avicenna AI Alternatives for CINA Stroke and PE Triage
The short answer
Avicenna.AI is a French company, founded in 2018 in La Ciotat, that makes CINA: CT triage software for suspected brain bleeds, large vessel occlusion, pulmonary embolism, aortic dissection, incidental PE and spine fractures. It holds seven FDA clearances and is usually bought inside a partner platform such as Canon, TeraRecon, Blackford or Viz.ai. The main alternatives are Aidoc, Viz.ai, RapidAI, Brainomix and Qure.ai.
Most hospitals never buy Avicenna.AI directly. CINA shows up as a line inside something else: a Canon CT purchase, a TeraRecon or Blackford AI platform contract, or the Viz.ai platform, which added CINA-iPE and CINA-ASPECTS in December 2024. That makes it hard to compare, because the person signing is usually evaluating the bundle and not the algorithm inside it.
This page pulls the algorithm back out. It lists every CINA clearance on the FDA record, puts the published accuracy numbers next to the independent ones (they differ, and the gap matters for stroke), names the distribution partners with dates, and compares CINA with the other vendors holding the same FDA triage product code. Search Avicenna AI today and you get the company site and trade press announcing clearances. None of it lines CINA up against the alternatives a stroke committee or ED imaging lead actually shortlists.
One framing point before the tables. CINA is a triage product. It flags suspected time-critical findings on specific CT exams and moves them up the list. It does not read the rest of the worklist and it does not draft the report, so the honest comparison is with other triage vendors, and the question after that is what covers the other ninety percent of the day's studies.
Worklist
Structured report
DraftRun the assistant to draft this report for review.
Decision support. The radiologist reviews and signs every study.
Decision support for qualified clinicians. Radiological.ai does not provide a diagnosis and is not a substitute for professional judgment.
Flag · prioritize · draft · you review and sign
Avicenna.AI sells acute CT triage modules: suspected hemorrhage and large vessel occlusion on head CT, PE and aortic dissection on chest CT, incidental PE on routine CT, ASPECTS scoring, and vertebral and cervical spine fractures. Radiological.ai is a different kind of product: it flags suspected findings across X-ray, CT and MRI, prioritizes the whole worklist and drafts the structured report for the radiologist to edit and sign.
Side by side
CINA against the other FDA-cleared CT triage vendors
Every vendor below holds at least one FDA clearance under product code QAS, radiological computer-assisted triage and notification software. Counts and dates come from the FDA record, not our testing.
| What to compare | Avicenna.AI CINA | Other cleared triage vendors |
|---|---|---|
| Who owns it | Avicenna.AI, a privately held company in La Ciotat, France, founded in 2018, led by co-founder and CEO Cyril Di Grandi. It raised a Series A of about $10 million announced in February 2023. We found no acquisition through October 2026. | Aidoc and Viz.ai are venture-backed US and Israeli companies, RapidAI is iSchemaView in California, Brainomix is UK-based, Qure.ai is Indian-founded with a US entity, and Methinks is Spanish. |
| QAS triage clearances | Five: CINA head (K200855, June 2020, updated K221716), CINA CHEST (K210237, May 2021), CINA-iPE (K233968, March 2024) and CINA-CSpine (K240942, September 2024). | Aidoc 25, RapidAI 10, Viz.ai 5, Brainomix 4, Qure.ai 2, Methinks 2. |
| Newest clearance | K240942, September 12, 2024. No Avicenna.AI clearance appears in 2025 or 2026 so far. | Aidoc K261317 (May 2026), RapidAI Rapid Vessel Occlusion K261085 (July 2026), Qure.ai qER-CTA K251610 (September 2025), Methinks CTA Stroke K251590 (August 2025). |
| Large vessel occlusion evidence | FDA summary: 97.9% sensitivity and 97.6% specificity on 476 cases. Independent Swedish study of 400 patients (2023): 54% sensitivity for anterior circulation LVO, 87% for M1. | A 2022 UC Irvine study of 253 CTAs measured RAPID LVO at 0.90 sensitivity against CINA LVO at 0.76, with CINA more specific (0.98 vs 0.86). |
| Beyond stroke | PE and aortic dissection, incidental PE on routine contrast CT, ASPECTS (K233342), vertebral compression fractures (K240612) and cervical spine fractures. | Aidoc covers the widest CT portfolio; Viz.ai and RapidAI center on the neurovascular and PE pathways with care-team alerting. |
| How it reaches US sites | Through partners: Canon Medical (November 2020), TeraRecon (March 2023), Blackford (February 2024), Viz.ai (December 2024), plus marketplace listings such as Sectra and Ferrum Health. Bracco and Avicenna.AI announced joint CT angiography work in March 2026. | Aidoc, Viz.ai and RapidAI mostly contract directly with the hospital and bring their own mobile alerting. |
| Published price | None. We found zero US federal awards to Avicenna.AI (the 28 federal rows that match the word avicenna are an unrelated VA medication software company). | None publishes a list price. Triage is usually licensed per module per facility. |
| Where it wins | You already own the platform it sits in. Adding CINA-iPE or the spine modules through Canon, Viz.ai or Blackford can be a contract amendment rather than a new vendor review. | Depth and care coordination for stroke teams, larger clearance portfolios, and more recent clearances. |
FDA data is from the openFDA 510(k) database (applicant searches and a QAS count by applicant, data current to September 28, 2026). Accuracy figures come from the FDA decision summaries and two peer-reviewed studies cited in the FAQ. Partner dates come from company and partner announcements.
What the FDA record shows
Every Avicenna.AI CINA clearance on the FDA record
Seven 510(k) clearances, all filed by Avicenna.AI. The product code tells you what kind of claim the FDA cleared, which is what your stroke or PE committee is actually buying.
| Clearance | Decision date and code | What it covers |
|---|---|---|
| K200855 CINA | June 24, 2020, QAS | Suspected intracranial hemorrhage on non-contrast head CT and large vessel occlusion on head CTA. |
| K210237 CINA CHEST | May 19, 2021, QAS | Suspected pulmonary embolism and aortic dissection on chest CT. |
| K221716 CINA | November 22, 2022, QAS | Update to the head CT hemorrhage and LVO clearance. |
| K233968 CINA-iPE | March 13, 2024, QAS | Incidental pulmonary embolism on routine contrast chest CT ordered for something else. |
| K233342 CINA-ASPECTS | March 15, 2024, POK | Automated ASPECTS scoring of early ischemic change on non-contrast head CT. |
| K240612 CINA-VCF | May 31, 2024, QFM | Vertebral compression fractures on CT. |
| K240942 CINA-CSpine | September 12, 2024, QAS | Suspected cervical spine fractures on CT. |
Source: openFDA 510(k) database, applicant Avicenna.Ai, retrieved October 12, 2026. A search for the bare name Avicenna also returns an unrelated laser company, which we excluded.
Side by side
Radiological.ai vs Avicenna.AI CINA, honestly
A fair look at what each does well. Both are capable tools. Here is where they differ.
| What matters | Radiological.ai | Avicenna.AI CINA |
|---|---|---|
| What you are buying | Software that flags suspected findings across the read, prioritizes the whole worklist and drafts the structured report. | Triage modules that flag specific time-critical findings on specific CT exams and push a notification. |
| Studies covered | X-ray, CT and MRI, under one subscription. | Head CT and CTA, chest CT, and spine CT, one cleared module at a time. |
| Unit of cost | Per reading radiologist, published: $399 a month on the Practice plan or $199 a month billed annually, and $598 a month on the Group plan or $299 a month billed annually. | Unpublished, and usually priced inside the partner platform or scanner contract it ships with. |
| Report drafting | Yes. A draft in your template, which the radiologist edits and signs. | No. Triage flags and notifies; the radiologist dictates the report as usual. |
| Who signs the report | The radiologist. The assistant never signs anything. | The radiologist. Triage output is not a diagnosis. |
| Best suited for | Practices that want help across the whole worklist and on the report itself. | Hospitals that already own Canon, Viz.ai, TeraRecon or Blackford and want incidental PE or spine fracture triage added. |
Comparison reflects general, publicly understood positioning. Capabilities change, so check each product for the latest.
Most CINA evaluations end up as a three-way comparison with RapidAI and Viz.ai. Our RapidAI alternative page covers the perfusion-led stroke platform, and Aidoc vs Viz.ai compares the two largest triage portfolios head to head. For the stroke pathway specifically, best stroke AI software for hospitals lays out the published outcome data.
Triage only reorders a few pathways. If you want the whole list ordered by suspected urgency, radiology worklist prioritization software explains how that works across every study, and the AI radiology assistant page shows the flag, prioritize and draft workflow end to end.
Why groups pick Radiological.ai
One assistant across the whole read
Ask for local sensitivity data
The FDA summary reports 97.9% LVO sensitivity, and an independent 400-patient study measured 54% for anterior circulation occlusions. Before you sign, run CINA retrospectively on 200 to 400 of your own CTAs and count the misses by vessel segment.
Know which contract you are in
If CINA arrives through Canon, Viz.ai or a platform, your service level, uptime and termination rights sit in that contract, not with Avicenna.AI. Ask who you call when a flag is missed at 2 a.m.
Price incidental findings separately
CINA-iPE and the spine modules run on routine CT, so they touch far more studies than stroke triage. Get the per-module price and the study volume it assumes in writing.
Separate triage from capacity
Triage reorders a handful of urgent pathways. If the real problem is how many studies each radiologist gets through, an assistant that orders the whole worklist and drafts the report addresses that directly.
Good questions
Avicenna.AI CINA vs Radiological.ai, answered
More comparisons
See how Radiological.ai compares
Aidoc alternative
One assistant across the whole read, not acute triage alone.
vs Rad AIRad AI alternative
Drafting plus flagging and triage, in one assistant.
vs DeepHealthDeepHealth alternative
Reporting AI without buying it from a competitor.
vs Fluency for ImagingPowerScribe vs Fluency for Imaging
The two reporting platforms most US groups actually shortlist.
vs Annalise.aiAnnalise.ai alternative
Finding flags plus triage and drafting, together.
vs Nuance PowerScribeNuance PowerScribe alternative
More than dictation: flagging, triage and drafting.
vs Qure.aiQure.ai alternative
Flags plus triage and drafting, in one assistant.
vs Viz.aiViz.ai alternative
Beyond acute stroke triage, across the whole read.
vs Nuance DAXNuance DAX alternative
Built for the read, not for the patient conversation.
vs LunitLunit alternative
One assistant across the whole read, not detection on two modalities.
vs GleamerGleamer alternative
One assistant across X-ray, CT and MRI, not a suite of per-exam detectors.
vs PowerScribe OnePowerScribe One vs 360
What actually changes in the cloud move, and the third option.
vs Sirona MedicalSirona Medical alternative
Add the assistant to the PACS you already run, without replacing the stack.
vs New LanternNew Lantern alternative
AI drafting and triage on the PACS you keep, not a new platform.
vs RapidAIRapidAI alternative
Past the stroke pathway, across the whole reading list.
vs Dragon Medical OneDragon Medical One pricing
Microsoft publishes no price. Here are 25 real federal contracts that do.
vs PowerScribePowerScribe pricing
No list price exists. Here are the only verifiable numbers that do.
vs PowerScribePowerScribe templates
What AutoText actually is, how to get yours out, and what survives a migration.
vs RADPAIR and PowerScribeRadPair vs PowerScribe
Three ways to write the report, compared on what each one actually replaces.
vs Aidoc and Viz.aiAidoc vs Viz.ai
Three acute triage platforms, compared on what they were each built to do.
vs vRad (Virtual Radiologic)vRad alternative
vRad publishes no rate card. 357 federal contract awards do.
vs ONRADONRAD alternative
ONRAD publishes no rate card. 80 federal contract awards do.
vs Real RadiologyReal Radiology alternative
Real Radiology publishes no rate card. 41 Army and VA contract awards do.
vs Experity TeleradiologyExperity Teleradiology alternative
The urgent care reading service that started as one Scottsdale radiologist and now sits inside an EMR company.
vs Sectra PACSSectra PACS alternative
The PACS that keeps winning satisfaction surveys, sold as a cloud subscription with no public price.
vs Visage PACSVisage PACS alternative
The fastest-growing enterprise viewer in US radiology, priced per transaction and disclosed deal by deal.
vs Intelerad PACSIntelerad PACS alternative
The teleradiology favorite, now a GE HealthCare business, with a renewal conversation that just changed.
vs Exa PACSExa PACS alternative
Often sold alongside a Konica X-ray room, with a thin public record you should fill in before you sign.
vs GE Centricity PACSGE Centricity PACS alternative
An aging install base, three GE PACS lines under one owner, and a recall record you should read before the renewal.
vs Agfa PACSAgfa PACS alternative
A Best in KLAS platform, a federal record over $300 million, and an IMPAX install base being moved to the cloud.
vs McKesson PACSMcKesson PACS alternative
A Horizon Medical Imaging install base now owned by Optum, a $98 million federal record and a cloud PACS sold per study.
vs Mach7Mach7 alternative
A Vermont-run, ASX-listed enterprise imaging vendor with a new CEO, falling revenue and a seat on the VA teleradiology PACS.
vs iCADiCAD ProFound AI alternative
The first FDA-cleared AI for breast tomosynthesis, now owned by RadNet, the largest operator of US outpatient imaging centers.
vs ScreenPoint TransparaTranspara alternative
Dutch mammography AI sold in the US through Siemens Healthineers and Fujifilm units, with the strongest trial record in the category.
vs Cortechs.ai NeuroQuantNeuroQuant alternative
The longest-cleared brain volumetrics product in the US, bought by imaging centers, neurology groups, the VA and military hospitals.
vs VIDIStarVIDIStar alternative
A Greenville cardiology PACS bought by Hitachi in 2018, inherited by Fujifilm in 2021 and sold today as Synapse Select.
vs Subtle MedicalSubtle Medical alternative
Two vendor-neutral MRI acceleration products, four scanner makers with their own, and the FDA and federal purchase records behind each.
From the blog: what the PowerScribe 360 end of life means for radiology groups, how much radiology AI costs, and the full comparison of the best AI radiology software in 2026.
See how Radiological.ai reads alongside your group
One assistant that flags suspected findings, prioritizes the worklist, and drafts the structured report on X-ray, CT and MRI. You review and sign every study.
Decision support for qualified clinicians. Radiological.ai does not provide a diagnosis and is not a substitute for professional medical judgment.