Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39440151›Full record

ArticleNeurotrauma reports2024

Clinical Impact of an AI Decision Support System for Detection of Intracranial Hemorrhage in CT Scans.

David Bark, Julia Basu, Dimitrios Toumpanakis, Johan Burwick Nyberg, Tomas Bjerner, Elham Rostami, David Fällmar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurotrauma reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

David BarkDepartment of Neurosciences, Neurosurgery, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2534-8842
Julia BasuDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Neuroradiology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Dimitrios ToumpanakisDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Neuroradiology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Johan Burwick NybergDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Neuroradiology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Tomas BjernerDepartment of Radiology in Linköping, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Elham RostamiDepartment of Neurosciences, Neurosurgery, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1218-6247
David FällmarDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Neuroradiology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the predictive value and clinical impact of a clinically implemented artificial neural network software model. The software detects intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) from head computed tomography (CT) scans and artificial intelligence (AI)-identified positive cases are then annotated in the work list for early radiologist evaluation. The index test was AI detection by the program Zebra Medical Vision-HealthICH+. Radiologist-confirmed ICH was the reference standard. The study compared whether time benefits from using the AI model led to faster escalation of patient care or surgery within the first 24 h. A total of 2,306 patients were evaluated by the software, and 288 AI-positive cases were included. The AI tool had a positive predictive value of 0.823. There was, however, no significant time reduction when comparing the patients who required escalation of care and those who did not. There was also no significant time reduction in those who required acute surgery compared with those who did not. Among the individual patients with reduced time delay, no cases with evident clinical benefit were identified. Although the clinically implemented AI-based decision support system showed adequate predictive value in identifying ICH, there was no significant clinical benefit for the patients in our setting. While AI-assisted detection of ICH shows great promise from a technical perspective, there remains a need to evaluate the clinical impact and perform external validation across different settings.

Indexed as

AI modelCNSdecision analysisICHoutcome analysis

Identifiers

PMID39440151
PMCPMC11491571

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.