ArticleClinical neuroradiology2022
Comparison of Radiomic Models Based on Different Machine Learning Methods for Predicting Intracerebral Hemorrhage Expansion.
Article in Clinical neuroradiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Poor Outcomes in Intracerebral Hemorrhage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Brain and behavior · 2026Pooled it
- The performance of artificial intelligence in image-based prediction of hematoma enlargement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Machine learning for predicting hematoma expansion in spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neuroradiology · 2024Pooled it
- Efficacy of non-enhanced computer tomography-based radiomics for predicting hematoma expansion: A meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Hematoma expansion in intracerebral hemorrhage: neuroimaging biomarkers, radiomics-based prediction models, and clinical translation.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Review
- An interpretable multimodal model for early prediction of delayed hematoma progression in frontal lobe contusion: a machine learning approach.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- A deep learning based radiomics model for differentiating intraparenchymal hematoma induced by cerebral venous thrombosis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Different radiomics models in predicting the malignant potential of small intestinal stromal tumors.European journal of radiology open · 2024Article
- Review
- Non-Contrasted CT Radiomics for SAH Prognosis Prediction.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Clinical-radiomics models based on plain X-rays for prediction of lung metastasis in patients with osteosarcoma.BMC medical imaging · 2023Article
- A review of radiomics and genomics applications in cancers: the way towards precision medicine.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2022Review
- Optimal machine learning methods for radiomic prediction models: Clinical application for preoperative TJOR spine · 2021Article
- Prediction Models of Early Childhood Caries Based on Machine Learning Algorithms.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe objective of this study was to predict hematoma expansion (HE) by radiomic models based on different machine learning methods and determine the best radiomic model through the comparison.
methodA total of 108 patients with intracerebral hemorrhage were retrospectively evaluated. Images of baseline non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) and follow-up NCCT scan within 24 h were retrospectively reviewed. An HE was defined as a volume increase of more than 33% or an increase greater than 12.5 mL from the volume of the baseline NCCT. Texture parameters of the baseline NCCT images were selected by the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression. We used support vector machine (SVM), decision tree (DT), conditional inference trees (CIT), random forest (RF), k‑nearest neighbors (KNN), back-propagation neural network (BPNet) and Bayes to build models. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and decision curve analysis (DCA) was performed and compared among models.
resultsEvery model had a relatively high AUC (all > 0.75), SVM and KNN had the highest AUC of 0.91. There were significant differences between SVM and CIT (Z > 2.266, p = 0.02345), KNN and CIT (Z = 2.4834, p = 0.01301), RF and CIT (Z = 2.6956, p = 0.007027), KNN and BPNet (Z = 2.0122, p = 0.0442), RF and BPNet (Z = 1.9793, p = 0.04778). There was no significant difference among SVM, DT, RF, KNN and Bayes (p > 0.05). The SVM obtained the largest net benefit when the threshold probability was less than 0.33, while KNN obtained the largest net benefit when the threshold probability was greater than 0.33. Combined with ROC and DCA, SVM and KNN performed better in all the models for predicting HE.
conclusionRadiomic models based on different machine learning methods can be used to predict HE and the models generated by SVM and KNN performed best.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34156513What 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.