ArticlePloS one2023
Incorporating algorithmic uncertainty into a clinical machine deep learning algorithm for urgent head CTs.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Deep learning in neurosurgery: a systematic literature review with a structured analysis of applications across subspecialties.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Defining operational safety in clinical artificial intelligence systems.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- [Explainable & Safe Artificial Intelligence in Radiology].Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2024Review
- Cortical thickness and white matter microstructure predict freezing of gait development in Parkinson's disease.NPJ Parkinson's disease · 2024Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) algorithms to detect critical findings on head CTs may expedite patient management. Most ML algorithms for diagnostic imaging analysis utilize dichotomous classifications to determine whether a specific abnormality is present. However, imaging findings may be indeterminate, and algorithmic inferences may have substantial uncertainty. We incorporated awareness of uncertainty into an ML algorithm that detects intracranial hemorrhage or other urgent intracranial abnormalities and evaluated prospectively identified, 1000 consecutive noncontrast head CTs assigned to Emergency Department Neuroradiology for interpretation. The algorithm classified the scans into high (IC+) and low (IC-) probabilities for intracranial hemorrhage or other urgent abnormalities. All other cases were designated as No Prediction (NP) by the algorithm. The positive predictive value for IC+ cases (N = 103) was 0.91 (CI: 0.84-0.96), and the negative predictive value for IC- cases (N = 729) was 0.94 (0.91-0.96). Admission, neurosurgical intervention, and 30-day mortality rates for IC+ was 75% (63-84), 35% (24-47), and 10% (4-20), compared to 43% (40-47), 4% (3-6), and 3% (2-5) for IC-. There were 168 NP cases, of which 32% had intracranial hemorrhage or other urgent abnormalities, 31% had artifacts and postoperative changes, and 29% had no abnormalities. An ML algorithm incorporating uncertainty classified most head CTs into clinically relevant groups with high predictive values and may help accelerate the management of patients with intracranial hemorrhage or other urgent intracranial abnormalities.
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.