SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025
Can artificial intelligence accurately predict the risk of hematoma expansion in intracerebral hemorrhage? A systematic review and Meta-analysis of 7,665 patients.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Machine learning models for predicting response to epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer brain metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Pooled it
- Longitudinal Evolution of Radiomic Features in Radiation-Induced Necrosis During Follow-Up of Brain Metastases: A Pilot Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- AI-Assisted Brain Tumor MRI Reporting and Treatment-Planning Segmentation: A Retrospective Paired Workflow Evaluation.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Predicting time-to-event outcomes in critically ill patients with intracerebral hemorrhage using machine learning.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in neurovascular surgery: advancing diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early prediction of hematoma expansion (HE) in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is critical for improving clinical outcome and guiding timely interventions. This study focuses on assessing the effectiveness of artificial intelligence (AI) models, specifically those utilizing machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) in predicting HE. The search strategy for this study was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science to identify eligible studies. Metrics such as sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve (AUC) were extracted and analyzed. Out of 1,235 studies initially screened, 14 met the inclusion criteria with totally 7665 patients. AI algorithms demonstrated significant predictive capabilities. The pooled sensitivity and specificity across studies were 0.82 [95% CI: 0.74-0.88] and 0.83 [95% CI: 0.78-0.87], respectively. The pooled positive DLR was 4.91 [95% CI: 3.73-6.47], while the negative DLR was 0.21 [95% CI: 0.14-0.32]. The diagnostic score was 3.14 [95% CI: 2.55-3.72], and the overall diagnostic odds ratio was 23.01 [95% CI: 12.83-41.24]. The pooled AUC was 0.89, suggesting a potentially useful diagnostic performance, although the high heterogeneity limits the robustness of this finding. Subgroup analysis revealed that AI models performed better in predicting HE, in patients with spontaneous ICH compared to patients with traumatic brain injury-related ICH, with a higher AUC (0.90 vs. 0.87), sensitivity (0.85 vs. 0.76) and diagnostic odds ratio (28 vs. 16). AI-based models may serve as potentially useful tools in predicting HE and supporting clinical decisions in ICH care. However, due to the high heterogeneity across studies, these findings should be interpreted with caution, and rigorous external validation with standardized imaging protocols is essential before clinical implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41276709What 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.