ArticleJournal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging2022
Bayesian deep learning outperforms clinical trial estimators of intracerebral and intraventricular hemorrhage volume.
Article in Journal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- AI Models for Surgical Decision Support in Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage: A Systematic Review in Relation to Trials and Guidelines.Neurocritical care · 2026Pooled it
- Deep learning-based automated segmentation of intracerebral haemorrhage, intraventricular haemorrhage and perihaematomal oedema on non-contrast CT.European stroke journal · 2026Pooled it
- Automated identification and quantification of traumatic brain injury from CT scans: Are we there yet?Medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Review
- Strategies to Improve the Robustness and Generalizability of Deep Learning Segmentation and Classification in Neuroimaging.BioMedInformatics · 2025Article
- Operationalizing a complex acute clinical trial: Lessons from the BEACH study.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Prediction of hematoma expansion in spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage using a multimodal neural network.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Do Deep Learning Algorithms Accurately Segment Intracerebral Hemorrhages on Noncontrast Computed Tomography? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2024Article
- Unified ICH quantification and prognosis prediction in NCCT images using a multi-task interpretable network.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposeIntracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) clinical trials rely on manual linear and semi-quantitative (LSQ) estimators like the ABC/2, modified Graeb and IVH scores for timely volumetric estimation from CT. Deep learning (DL) volumetrics of ICH have recently approached the accuracy of gold-standard planimetry. However, DL and LSQ strategies have been limited by unquantified uncertainty, in particular when ICH and IVH estimates intersect. Bayesian deep learning methods can be used to approximate uncertainty, presenting an opportunity to improve quality assurance in clinical trials.
methodsA DL model was trained to simultaneously segment ICH and IVH using diagnostic CT data from the Minimally Invasive Surgery Plus Alteplase for ICH Evacuation (MISTIE) III and Clot Lysis: Evaluating Accelerated Resolution of IVH (CLEAR) III clinical trials. Bayesian uncertainty approximation was performed using Monte-Carlo dropout. We compared the performance of our model with estimators used in the CLEAR IVH and MISTIE II trials. The reliability of planimetry, DL, and LSQ volumetrics in the setting of high ICH and IVH intersection is quantified using consensus estimates.
resultsOur DL model produced volume correlations and median Dice scores of .994 and .946 for ICH in MISTIE II, and .980 and .863 for IVH in CLEAR IVH, respectively, outperforming LSQ estimates from the clinical trials. We found significant linear relationships between ICH uncertainty, Dice scores (r = -.849), and relative volume difference (r = .735).
conclusionIn our validation clinical trial dataset, DL models with Bayesian uncertainty approximation provided superior volumetric estimates to LSQ methods with real-time estimates of model uncertainty.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.