ArticleFrontiers in neurology2025
Assessment of commercially available artificial intelligence software for differentiating hemorrhage from contrast on head CT following thrombolysis for ischemic stroke.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Explainable Knowledge-Guided Algorithm for Contrast Extravasation Detection on Computed Tomography.IEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine · 2026Article
- Real-world performance evaluation of a commercial deep learning model for intracranial hemorrhage detection.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In patients who have undergone ischemic stroke therapy, retained iodine-based contrast can resemble acute intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) on standard computed tomography (CT). The purpose of this study is to determine the accuracy of commercially available artificial intelligence software for differentiating hemorrhage from contrast in such cases. Methods: A total of 45 CT scans analyzed by Aidoc software that also included dual-energy iodine subtraction maps from dual energy CT from 23 unique patients (12 male, 11 female, age range 30-99 years, mean age 67.6 years, standard deviation 18.5 years) following recent ischemic stroke therapy were retrospectively reviewed for the presence of hemorrhage versus retained contrast material. Results: The sensitivity and specificity of the model in detecting acute intracranial hemorrhage as opposed to contrast were 51.7 and 50.0%, respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were 65.2 and 36.4%, respectively. Conclusion: The current Aidoc software is not optimized for differentiating between acute hemorrhage and retained contrast on CT. This justifies the development of a more robust artificial intelligence model trained to differentiate between ICH and iodine contrast based on both DECT and standard CT images.
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.