Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40397134›Full record

SynthesisNeuroradiology2025

Can machine learning be a reliable tool for predicting hematoma progression following traumatic brain injury? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ibrahim Mohammadzadeh, Bardia Hajikarimloo, Pooya Eini, Behnaz Niroomand, Shahin Mohammadzadeh, Mohammad Amin Habibi, Zohre Masoumi Shahr-E Babak, Abbas Aliaghaei

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neuroradiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

8 authors.

Ibrahim MohammadzadehSkull Base Research Center, Loghman-Hakim Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran. Ibrahim.mdz7777@gmail.com.
Bardia HajikarimlooDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Pooya EiniToxicological Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran.
Behnaz NiroomandSkull Base Research Center, Loghman-Hakim Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran. behnaz.nrm@gmail.com.
Shahin MohammadzadehSkull Base Research Center, Loghman-Hakim Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran.
Mohammad Amin HabibiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran.
Zohre Masoumi Shahr-E BabakSchool of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran.
Abbas AliaghaeiDepartment of Biology and Anatomical Sciences, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPredicting hematoma progression in traumatic brain injury (TBI) is crucial for timely interventions and effective clinical management, as unchecked hematoma growth can lead to rapid neurological deterioration, increased intracranial pressure, and poor patient outcomes. Accurate risk assessment enables proactive therapeutic strategies, minimizing secondary brain damage and improving survival rates.

methodsThis study evaluated to assess the performance of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms, including machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL), in forecasting risk of hematoma progression. Comprehensive searches across Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed identified relevant studies, with data extracted on algorithm metrics such as sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC).

results1,240 studies screened, five out of them met the inclusion criteria, evaluating various AI models. The meta-analysis revealed a pooled sensitivity and specificity was 0.76 [95% CI: 0.67-0.83], 0.84 [95% CI: 0.78-0.89], positive and negative likelihood ratio was 4.82 [95% CI: 3.51-6.61] 0.29 [95% CI: 0.21-0.39], diagnostic score was 2.82 [95% CI: 2.33-3.32], diagnostic odds ratio was16.85 [95% CI: 10.29-27.59] and an AUC of 0.88 [95% CI: 0.85-0.90]. Among the evaluated algorithms, XGBoost has the best predictive performance with an accuracy of 91%. Integrating radiomics and clinical features in these models considerably improved the predictive outcomes.

conclusionThe current results demonstrated the potential of AI-based models to improve hematoma progression prediction for TBI patients, thereby supporting more effective clinical decision-making. Further research should aim to standardize datasets and diversify patient populations to improve model applicability and reliability.

Indexed as

Brain Injuries, TraumaticHematomaMachine LearningDisease ProgressionHumansSensitivity and SpecificityArtificial intelligenceDeep learningHematoma progressionMachine learningTraumatic brain injury

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.