ArticleScientific reports2022
Decision effect of a deep-learning model to assist a head computed tomography order for pediatric traumatic brain injury.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large Language Model Decision Support for Cranial CT in Pediatric Head Trauma.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in paediatric neuroradiology: current landscape, challenges, and future directions.Pediatric radiology · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Neurocritical Care : Multimodal Biosignal Analysis for Prognosis, Monitoring, and Future Pediatric Applications.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study aims to measure the effectiveness of an AI-based traumatic intracranial hemorrhage prediction model in the decisions of emergency physicians regarding ordering head computed tomography (CT) scans. We developed a deep-learning model for predicting traumatic intracranial hemorrhages (DEEPTICH) using a national trauma registry with 1.8 million cases. For simulation, 24 cases were selected from previous emergency department cases. For each case, physicians made decisions on ordering a head CT twice: initially without the DEEPTICH assistance, and subsequently with the DEEPTICH assistance. Of the 528 responses from 22 participants, 201 initial decisions were different from the DEEPTICH recommendations. Of these 201 initial decisions, 94 were changed after DEEPTICH assistance (46.8%). For the cases in which CT was initially not ordered, 71.4% of the decisions were changed (p < 0.001), and for the cases in which CT was initially ordered, 37.2% (p < 0.001) of the decisions were changed after DEEPTICH assistance. When using DEEPTICH, 46 (11.6%) unnecessary CTs were avoided (p < 0.001) and 10 (11.4%) traumatic intracranial hemorrhages (ICHs) that would have been otherwise missed were found (p = 0.039). We found that emergency physicians were likely to accept AI based on how they perceived its safety.
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.