ArticleApplied sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Optimizing Automated Hematoma Expansion Classification from Baseline and Follow-Up Head Computed Tomography.
Article in Applied sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Hematoma expansion (HE) is an independent predictor of poor outcomes and a modifiable treatment target in intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). Evaluating HE in large datasets requires segmentation of hematomas on admission and follow-up CT scans, a process that is time-consuming and labor-intensive in large-scale studies. Automated segmentation of hematomas can expedite this process; however, cumulative errors from segmentation on admission and follow-up scans can hamper accurate HE classification. In this study, we combined a tandem deep-learning classification model with automated segmentation to generate probability measures for false HE classifications. With this strategy, we can limit expert review of automated hematoma segmentations to a subset of the dataset, tailored to the research team's preferred sensitivity or specificity thresholds and their tolerance for false-positive versus false-negative results. We utilized three separate multicentric cohorts for cross-validation/training, internal testing, and external validation (
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.