SynthesisAnnals of medicine2025
The performance of artificial intelligence in image-based prediction of hematoma enlargement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Annals of medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- An end-to-end deep learning pipeline for hematoma expansion prediction in spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage based on non-contrast computed tomography.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Prediction of postoperative haemorrhage after cerebral tumour surgery using machine learning algorithms.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- A Machine Learning Approach to Modify the Neurocognitive Frailty Index for the Prediction of Cognitive Status in the Canadian Population.Journal of clinical 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurately predicting hematoma enlargement (HE) is crucial for improving the prognosis of patients with cerebral haemorrhage. Artificial intelligence (AI) is a potentially reliable assistant for medical image recognition. This study systematically reviews medical imaging articles on the predictive performance of AI in HE. MATERIALS AND
methodsRetrieved relevant studies published before October, 2024 from Embase, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. The diagnostic test of predicting hematoma enlargement based on CT image training artificial intelligence model, and reported 2 × 2 contingency tables or provided sensitivity (SE) and specificity (SP) for calculation. Two reviewers independently screened the retrieved citations and extracted data. The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the QUADAS-AI, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses was used to ensure standardised reporting of studies. Subgroup analysis was performed based on sample size, risk of bias, year of publication, ratio of training set to test set, and number of centres involved.
results36 articles were included in this Systematic review to qualitative analysis, of which 23 have sufficient information for further quantitative analysis. Among these articles, there are a total of 7 articles used deep learning (DL) and 16 articles used machine learning (ML). The comprehensive SE and SP of ML are 78% (95% CI: 69-85%) and 85% (78-90%), respectively, while the AUC is 0.89 (0.86-0.91). The SE and SP of DL was 87% (95% CI: 80-92%) and 75% (67-81%), respectively, with an AUC of 0.88 (0.85-0.91). The subgroup analysis found that when the ratio of the training set to the test set is 7:3, the sensitivity is 0.77(0.62-0.91),
conclusionsArtificial intelligence algorithms based on imaging have shown good performance in predicting HE.
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.