Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40382387›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Intracranial hemorrhage segmentation and classification framework in computer tomography images using deep learning techniques.

S Nafees Ahmed, P Prakasam

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

2 authors.

S Nafees AhmedSchool of Electronics Engineering, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, India.
P PrakasamSchool of Electronics Engineering, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, India. prakasam.p@vit.ac.in.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

By helping the neurosurgeon create treatment strategies that increase the survival rate, automotive diagnosis and CT (Computed Tomography) hemorrhage segmentation (CT) could be beneficial. Owing to the significance of medical image segmentation and the difficulties in carrying out human operations, a wide variety of automated techniques for this purpose have been developed, with a primary focus on particular image modalities. In this paper, MUNet (Multiclass-UNet) based Intracranial Hemorrhage Segmentation and Classification Framework (IHSNet) is proposed to successfully segment multiple kinds of hemorrhages while the fully connected layers help in classifying the type of hemorrhages.The segmentation accuracy rates for hemorrhages are 98.53% with classification accuracy stands at 98.71% when using the suggested approach. There is potential for this suggested approach to be expanded in the future to handle further medical picture segmentation issues. Intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), Epidural hemorrhage (EDH), Intraparenchymal hemorrhage (IPH), Subdural hemorrhage (SDH), Subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) are the subtypes involved in intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) whose DICE coefficients are 0.77, 0.84, 0.64, 0.80, and 0.92 respectively.The proposed method has great deal of clinical application potential for computer-aided diagnostics, which can be expanded in the future to handle further medical picture segmentation and to tackle with the involved issues.

Indexed as

Deep LearningImage Processing, Computer-AssistedIntracranial HemorrhagesTomography, X-Ray ComputedHumansClassificationDeep learningIntracranial hemorrhageMUNETSegmentation

Identifiers

PMID40382387
PMCPMC12085612

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.