ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2023
Crowd-Sourced Deep Learning for Intracranial Hemorrhage Identification: Wisdom of Crowds or Laissez-Faire.
Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Deep Learning for Intracranial Hemorrhage Detection in Non-Contrast Brain CT Scans: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeResearchers and clinical radiology practices are increasingly faced with the task of selecting the most accurate artificial intelligence tools from an ever-expanding range. In this study, we sought to test the utility of ensemble learning for determining the best combination from 70 models trained to identify intracranial hemorrhage. Furthermore, we investigated whether ensemble deployment is preferred to use of the single best model. It was hypothesized that any individual model in the ensemble would be outperformed by the ensemble. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this retrospective study, de-identified clinical head CT scans from 134 patients were included. Every section was annotated with "no-intracranial hemorrhage" or "intracranial hemorrhage," and 70 convolutional neural networks were used for their identification. Four ensemble learning methods were researched, and their accuracies as well as receiver operating characteristic curves and the corresponding areas under the curve were compared with those of individual convolutional neural networks. The areas under the curve were compared for a statistical difference using a generalized U-statistic.
resultsThe individual convolutional neural networks had an average test accuracy of 67.8% (range, 59.4%-76.0%). Three ensemble learning methods outperformed this average test accuracy, but only one achieved an accuracy above the 95th percentile of the individual convolutional neural network accuracy distribution. Only 1 ensemble learning method achieved a similar area under the curve as the single best convolutional neural network (Δarea under the curve = 0.03; 95% CI, -0.01-0.06;
conclusionsNone of the ensemble learning methods outperformed the accuracy of the single best convolutional neural network, at least in the context of intracranial hemorrhage detection.
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.