ArticleEmergency radiology2024
Sociodemographic biases in a commercial AI model for intracranial hemorrhage detection.
Article in Emergency radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review of commercial artificial intelligence tools for the detection and volume quantification in intracerebral hemorrhage.European radiology · 2026Pooled it
- Real-world performance evaluation of a commercial deep learning model for intracranial hemorrhage detection.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Performance of an artificial intelligence tool for multi-step acute stroke imaging: A multicenter diagnostic study.European journal of radiology open · 2025Article
- 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate whether a commercial AI tool for intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) detection on head CT exhibited sociodemographic biases.
methodsOur retrospective study reviewed 9736 consecutive, adult non-contrast head CT scans performed between November 2021 and February 2022 in a single healthcare system. Each CT scan was evaluated by a commercial ICH AI tool and a board-certified neuroradiologist; ground truth was defined as final radiologist determination of ICH presence/absence. After evaluating the AI tool's aggregate diagnostic performance, sub-analyses based on sociodemographic groups (age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance status, and Area of Deprivation Index [ADI] scores) assessed for biases. χ
resultsOur patient population was 50% female (mean age 60 ± 19 years). The AI tool had an aggregate accuracy of 93% [9060/9736], sensitivity of 85% [1140/1338], specificity of 94% [7920/ 8398], positive predictive value (PPV) of 71% [1140/1618] and negative predictive value (NPV) of 98% [7920/8118]. Sociodemographic biases were identified, including lower PPV for patients who were females (67.3% [62,441/656] vs. 72.7% [699/962], p = 0.02), Black (66.7% [454/681] vs. 73.2% [686/937], p = 0.005), non-Hispanic/non-Latino (69.7% [1038/1490] vs. 95.4% [417/437]), p = 0.009), and who had Medicaid/Medicare (69.9% [754/1078]) or Private (66.5% [228/343]) primary insurance (p = 0.003). Lower sensitivity was seen for patients in the third quartile of national (78.8% [241/306], p = 0.001) and state ADI scores (79.0% [22/287], p = 0.001).
conclusionsIn our healthcare system, a commercial AI tool had lower performance for ICH detection than previously reported and demonstrated several sociodemographic biases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39034382What 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.