ArticleBrain & spine2025
Diagnostic performance and clinical applications of artificial intelligence for intracranial bleeding detection: A meta-analysis.
Article in Brain & spine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence and emergency physicians in the USA: enhancing clinical excellence while preserving physicians' judgment.World journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
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
Introduction: Intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is a neurological emergency with high mortality rates requiring timely diagnosis. While computed tomography (CT) remains the gold standard, diagnostic accuracy varies with radiologist experience and workload. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the diagnostic performance of AI algorithms in detecting ICH on CT imaging and to explore key considerations for their clinical implementation in emergency and teleradiology settings. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA-DTA guidelines, searching seven databases up to May 2025. Studies evaluating AI diagnostic accuracy for ICH detection on non-contrast CT scans were included. Quality assessment used QUADAS-2 criteria. Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects models, with subgroup analyses by algorithm architecture and ICH subtype. Results: A total of 45 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 29 research algorithm evaluations (n = 185,847 patients) and 16 studies of commercial AI system implementations (n = 94,523 patients). Research algorithms demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 0.890 (95 % CI: 0.839-0.942) and specificity of 0.926 (95 % CI: 0.899-0.954). Commercial AI systems exhibited slightly superior performance, with sensitivity of 0.899 (95 % CI: 0.858-0.940) and specificity of 0.951 (95 % CI: 0.928-0.974). Diagnostic accuracy varied notably across ICH subtypes, with epidural hemorrhage presenting the greatest detection challenge (difficulty score: 0.251). Among algorithmic designs, convolutional recurrent neural networks (CNN-RNNs) demonstrated the highest diagnostic performance. In real-world clinical implementation, AI integration demonstrated substantial workflow improvements: door-to-treatment decision time reduced by 26 % (92 → 68 min), critical case notification time decreased by 57 % (75 → 32 min), and triage accuracy improved by 8 % (86 %→94 %), directly impacting patient care pathways. Despite a 7-8 % sensitivity reduction compared to benchmark settings, these clinical benefits were consistent across implementations. Conclusions: AI algorithms demonstrate strong diagnostic performance in detecting ICH, with commercial systems demonstrating superior specificity compared to research models. Despite notable performance gaps in detecting certain hemorrhage subtypes, particularly epidural hemorrhage, the clinical benefits of AI integration, including improved workflow efficiency and reduced time to treatment decisions, are substantial. Future research should prioritize prospective validation and the development of algorithms tailored to enhance detection across challenging ICH subtypes.
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.