ArticlePloS one2023
Comparative analysis between different volumetric methods on measuring intracranial hemorrhage incorporating roundness index.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Intracranial hematoma (ICH) volume is considered a predictor of clinical outcome and mortality rate in ICH patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). The ABC/2 method for ICH volume is the standard method used to date, however, its level of accuracy has been questioned in some studies. This study compared the performance of the ABC/2 method with planimetry and truncated pyramidal methods to highlight the potential of the planimetry method applied with automatic segmentation for evaluation of epidural hematoma (EDH) and intraparenchymal hematoma (IPH) volume. Six different phantoms were designed to evaluate the accuracy of volume estimation methods. 221 hematoma regions extracted from CT scans of 125 patients with head injury were also used to analyze the efficiency. The roundness index was utilized for the quantification of the ellipsoid-like shape. Regions of EDH and IPH on the CT scans were annotated by radiologists. The estimation errors for each method were statistically analyzed and compared. In addition, the relationship between the errors and roundness index was examined. The planimetry method showed the lowest relative error on phantom data. In the case of the CT scan data, the truncated pyramidal method resulted in the underestimation of the volumes of EDH and IPH. Meanwhile, the ABC/2, through principal component analysis (PCA) in the two-dimensional and PCA in the three-dimensional methods, resulted in a significant overestimation. In addition, both these approaches produced relative errors that showed a correlation with the roundness indexes for IPH. In comparison to other methods, the planimetry method had the lowest level of error with regards to calculation of the volume and it was also independent of the hematoma shape. The planimetry method, therefore, has the potential to serve as a useful tool for the assessment of ICH volume in TBI patients by using a deep learning system.
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.