ArticleEmergency radiology2023
Toward automated interpretable AAST grading for blunt splenic injury.
Article in Emergency radiology, 2023. 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, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Scalable and objective wound infection screening from clinical images using deep learning.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence for abdominopelvic trauma imaging: trends, gaps, and future directions.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
- An Intrinsically Explainable Approach to Detecting Vertebral Compression Fractures in CT Scans via Neurosymbolic Modeling.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2025Article
- The RSNA Abdominal Traumatic Injury CT (RATIC) Dataset.Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2024Article
- Deep Learning for Automated Detection and Localization of Traumatic Abdominal Solid Organ Injuries on CT Scans.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2024Article
- Deep Learning for Automated Detection and Localization of Traumatic Abdominal Solid Organ Injuries on CT Scans.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2024Article
- Acute splenic hematoma: A rare complication of snake bite.Clinical case reports · 2024Article
- An ASER AI/ML expert panel formative user research study for an interpretable interactive splenic AAST grading graphical user interface prototype.Emergency radiology · 2024Article
- Pulmonary contusion: automated deep learning-based quantitative visualization.Emergency radiology · 2023Article
- A survey of ASER members on artificial intelligence in emergency radiology: trends, perceptions, and expectations.Emergency radiology · 2023Article
- Artificial intelligence CAD tools in trauma imaging: a scoping review from the American Society of Emergency Radiology (ASER) AI/ML Expert Panel.Emergency radiology · 2023Article
- Accelerating voxelwise annotation of cross-sectional imaging through AI collaborative labeling with quality assurance and bias mitigation.Frontiers in radiology · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) splenic organ injury scale (OIS) is the most frequently used CT-based grading system for blunt splenic trauma. However, reported inter-rater agreement is modest, and an algorithm that objectively automates grading based on transparent and verifiable criteria could serve as a high-trust diagnostic aid. PURPOSE: To pilot the development of an automated interpretable multi-stage deep learning-based system to predict AAST grade from admission trauma CT.
methodsOur pipeline includes 4 parts: (1) automated splenic localization, (2) Faster R-CNN-based detection of pseudoaneurysms (PSA) and active bleeds (AB), (3) nnU-Net segmentation and quantification of splenic parenchymal disruption (SPD), and (4) a directed graph that infers AAST grades from detection and segmentation results. Training and validation is performed on a dataset of adult patients (age ≥ 18) with voxelwise labeling, consensus AAST grading, and hemorrhage-related outcome data (n = 174).
resultsAAST classification agreement (weighted κ) between automated and consensus AAST grades was substantial (0.79). High-grade (IV and V) injuries were predicted with accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 92%, 95%, and 89%. The area under the curve for predicting hemorrhage control intervention was comparable between expert consensus and automated AAST grading (0.83 vs 0.88). The mean combined inference time for the pipeline was 96.9 s.
conclusionsThe results of our method were rapid and verifiable, with high agreement between automated and expert consensus grades. Diagnosis of high-grade lesions and prediction of hemorrhage control intervention produced accurate results in adult patients.
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.