ArticleNeurocritical care2020
Validation and Comparison of Noncontrast CT Scores to Predict Intracerebral Hemorrhage Expansion.
Article in Neurocritical care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prediction of intracerebral hemorrhage hematoma expansion: value of a novel deep learning system score.European radiology · 2026Article
- Stepwise improvement in intracerebral haematoma expansion prediction with advanced imaging: a comprehensive comparison of existing scores.Stroke and vascular neurology · 2025Article
- Predicting hemorrhage expansion in patients with hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage: the HE-VSD-A2TP score.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Prediction of hematoma expansion in spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage using a multimodal neural network.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Machine learning prediction of hematoma expansion in acute intracerebral hemorrhage.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Increased Prognostic Yield by Combined Assessment of Non-Contrast Computed Tomography Markers of Antithrombotic-Related Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage Expansion.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Identifying risk factors of intracerebral hemorrhage stability using explainable attention model.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2022Article
- Quantitative CT radiomics-based models for prediction of haematoma expansion and poor functional outcome in primary intracerebral haemorrhage.European radiology · 2021Article
- Article
- Association Between Anatomical Location and Hematoma Expansion in Deep Intracerebral Hemorrhage.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Article
- Hematoma Ventricle Distance on Computed Tomography Predicts Poor Outcome in Intracerebral Hemorrhage.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2020Article
- Hematoma Expansion in Intracerebral Hemorrhage: An Update on Prediction and Treatment.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeThe BAT, BRAIN, and HEP scores have been proposed to predict hematoma expansion (HE) with noncontrast computed tomography (NCCT). We sought to validate these tools and compare their diagnostic performance.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed two cohorts of patients with primary intracerebral hemorrhage. HE expansion was defined as volume growth > 33% or > 6 mL. Two raters analyzed NCCT scans and calculated the scores, blinded to clinical and imaging data. The inter-rater reliability was assessed with the interclass correlation statistic. Discrimination and calibration were calculated with area under the curve (AUC) and Hosmer-Lemeshow χ
resultsA total of 230 subjects were included, of whom 86 (37.4%) experienced HE. The observed AUC for HE were 0.696 for BAT, 0.700 for BRAIN, and 0.648 for HEP. None of the scores had a significantly superior AUC compared with the others (all p > 0.4). All the scores had good calibration (all p > 0.3) and good-to-excellent inter-rater reliability (interclass correlation > 0.8). BAT ≥ 3 showed the highest specificity (0.81), whereas BRAIN ≥ 6 had the highest sensitivity (0.76).
conclusionsThe BAT, BRAIN, and HEP scores can predict HE with acceptable discrimination and require just a baseline NCCT scan. These tools may be used to stratify the risk of HE in clinical practice or randomized controlled trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31342451What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.