ArticleBJR open2024
A retrospective audit of an artificial intelligence software for the detection of intracranial haemorrhage used by a teleradiology company in the United Kingdom.
Article in BJR open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 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
- Radiologist Perceptions of an AI Tool for Intracranial Hemorrhage Detection in Teleradiology: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Radiologist burnout: AI's true black box.European radiology · 2026Review
- Real-World Integration of an Automated Tool for Intracranial Hemorrhage Detection in an Unselected Cohort of Emergency Department Patients-An External Validation Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-assisted reader evaluation in acute CT head interpretation (AI-REACT): a multireader multicase study.BMJ digital health & AI · 2026Article
- Deep learning for intracranial hemorrhage detection and classification in brain CT scans: a systematic review and hybrid model approach.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Standalone AI Versus AI-Assisted Radiologists in Emergency ICH Detection: A Prospective, Multicenter Diagnostic Accuracy Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
- Clinical implications of teleradiology in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: improving rheumatic care.Rheumatology international · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms have the potential to assist radiologists in the reporting of head computed tomography (CT) scans. We investigated the performance of an AI-based software device used in a large teleradiology practice for intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) detection. Methods: A randomly selected subset of all non-contrast CT head (NCCTH) scans from patients aged ≥18 years referred for urgent teleradiology reporting from 44 different hospitals within the United Kingdom over a 4-month period was considered for this evaluation. Thirty auditing radiologists evaluated the NCCTH scans and the AI output retrospectively. Agreement between AI and auditing radiologists is reported along with failure analysis. Results: A total of 1315 NCCTH scans from as many distinct patients (median age, 73 years [IQR 53-84]; 696 [52.9%] females) were evaluated. One hundred twelve (8.5%) scans had ICH. Overall agreement, positive percent agreement, negative percent agreement, and Gwet's AC1 of AI with radiologists were found to be 93.5% (95% CI, 92.1-94.8), 85.7% (77.8-91.6), 94.3% (92.8-95.5) and 0.92 (0.90-0.94), respectively, in detecting ICH. 9 out of 16 false negative outcomes were due to missed subarachnoid haemorrhages and these were predominantly subtle haemorrhages. The most common reason for false positive results was due to motion artefacts. Conclusions: AI demonstrated very good agreement with the radiologists in the detection of ICH. Advances in knowledge: Real-world evaluation of an AI-based CT head interpretation device is reported. Knowledge of scenarios where false negative and false positive results are possible will help reporting radiologists.
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.