ArticleTomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.)2023
Multilesion Segmentations in Patients with Intracerebral Hemorrhage: Reliability of ICH, IVH and PHE Masks.
Article in Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing Automated Hematoma Expansion Classification from Baseline and Follow-Up Head Computed Tomography.Applied sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Ultra-early follow-up computed tomography detects hematoma expansion in intracerebral hemorrhage with high accuracy.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- A Hybrid Transformer-Convolutional Neural Network for Segmentation of Intracerebral Hemorrhage and Perihematomal Edema on Non-Contrast Head Computed Tomography (CT) with Uncertainty Quantification to Improve Confidence.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Deep learning-based multiclass segmentation in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Radiological features of brain hemorrhage through automated segmentation from computed tomography in stroke and traumatic brain injury.Frontiers in neurology · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Fully automated methods for segmentation and volume quantification of intraparenchymal hemorrhage (ICH), intraventricular hemorrhage extension (IVH), and perihematomal edema (PHE) are gaining increasing interest. Yet, reliabilities demonstrate considerable variances amongst each other. Our aim was therefore to evaluate both the intra- and interrater reliability of ICH, IVH and PHE on ground-truth segmentation masks. Methods: Patients with primary spontaneous ICH were retrospectively included from a German tertiary stroke center (Charité Berlin; January 2016−June 2020). Baseline and follow-up non-contrast Computed Tomography (NCCT) scans were analyzed for ICH, IVH, and PHE volume quantification by two radiology residents. Raters were blinded to all demographic and outcome data. Inter- and intrarater agreements were determined by calculating the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) for a randomly selected set of patients with ICH, IVH, and PHE. Results: 100 out of 670 patients were included in the analysis. Interrater agreements ranged from an ICC of 0.998 for ICH (95% CI [0.993; 0.997]), to an ICC of 0.979 for IVH (95% CI [0.984; 0.993]), and an ICC of 0.886 for PHE (95% CI [0.760; 0.938]), all p-values < 0.001. Intrarater agreements ranged from an ICC of 0.997 for ICH (95% CI [0.996; 0.998]), to an ICC of 0.995 for IVH (95% CI [0.992; 0.996]), and an ICC of 0.980 for PHE (95% CI [0.971; 0.987]), all p-values < 0.001. Conclusion Manual segmentations of ICH, IVH, and PHE demonstrate good-to-excellent inter- and intrarater reliabilities, with the highest agreement for ICH and IVH and lowest for PHE. Therefore, the degree of variances reported in fully automated quantification methods might be related amongst others to variances in ground-truth masks.
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.