Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41585390›Full record

ArticleStroke (Hoboken, N.J.)2024

Evaluation of an Artificial Intelligence Model for Identification of Intracranial Hemorrhage Subtypes on Computed Tomography of the Head.

James M Hillis, Bernardo C Bizzo, Isabella Newbury-Chaet, Sarah F Mercaldo, John K Chin, Ankita Ghatak, Madeleine A Halle, Eric L'Italien, Ashley L MacDonald, Alex S Schultz and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

16 authors.

James M HillisData Science Office Mass General Brigham Boston MA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0435-0879
Bernardo C BizzoData Science Office Mass General Brigham Boston MA.
Isabella Newbury-ChaetData Science Office Mass General Brigham Boston MA.
Sarah F MercaldoData Science Office Mass General Brigham Boston MA.
John K ChinData Science Office Mass General Brigham Boston MA.
Ankita GhatakData Science Office Mass General Brigham Boston MA.
Madeleine A HalleData Science Office Mass General Brigham Boston MA.
Eric L'ItalienData Science Office Mass General Brigham Boston MA.
Ashley L MacDonaldData Science Office Mass General Brigham Boston MA.
Alex S SchultzData Science Office Mass General Brigham Boston MA.
Karen BuchHarvard Medical School Boston MA.
John ConklinHarvard Medical School Boston MA.
Stuart PomerantzData Science Office Mass General Brigham Boston MA.
Sandra RinconHarvard Medical School Boston MA.
Keith J DreyerData Science Office Mass General Brigham Boston MA.
William A MehanHarvard Medical School Boston MA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Intracranial hemorrhage is a critical finding on computed tomography (CT) of the head. This study compared the accuracy of an artificial intelligence (AI) model (Annalise Enterprise CTB Triage Trauma) to consensus neuroradiologist interpretations in detecting 4 hemorrhage subtypes: acute subdural/epidural hematoma, acute subarachnoid hemorrhage, intra-axial hemorrhage, and intraventricular hemorrhage. Methods: A retrospective stand-alone performance assessment was conducted on data sets of cases of noncontrast CT of the head acquired between 2016 and 2022 at 5 hospitals in the United States for each hemorrhage subtype. The cases were obtained from patients aged ≥18 years. The positive cases were selected on the basis of the original clinical reports using natural language processing and manual confirmation. The negative cases were selected by taking the next negative case acquired from the same CT scanner after positive cases. Each case was interpreted independently by up to 3 neuroradiologists to establish consensus interpretations. Each case was then interpreted by the AI model for the presence of the relevant hemorrhage subtype. The neuroradiologists were provided with the entire CT study. The AI model separately received thin (≤1.5 mm) and thick (>1.5 and ≤5 mm) axial series as available. Results: The 4 cohorts included 571 cases of acute subdural/epidural hematoma, 310 cases of acute subarachnoid hemorrhage, 926 cases of intra-axial hemorrhage, and 199 cases of intraventricular hemorrhage. The AI model identified acute subdural/epidural hematoma with area under the curve of 0.973 (95% CI, 0.958-0.984) on thin series and 0.942 (95% CI, 0.921-0.959) on thick series; acute subarachnoid hemorrhage with area under the curve 0.993 (95% CI, 0.984-0.998) on thin series and 0.966 (95% CI, 0.945-0.983) on thick series; intraaxial hemorrhage with area under the curve of 0.969 (95% CI, 0.956-0.980) on thin series and 0.966 (95% CI, 0.953-0.976) on thick series; and intraventricular hemorrhage with area under the curve of 0.987 (95% CI, 0.969-0.997) on thin series and 0.983 (95% CI, 0.968-0.994) on thick series. Each finding had at least 1 operating point with sensitivity and specificity >80%. Conclusion: The assessed AI model accurately identified intracranial hemorrhage subtypes in this CT data set. Its use could assist the clinical workflow, especially through enabling triage of abnormal CTs.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceintra‐axial hemorrhageintracranial hemorrhageintraventricular hemorrhagemachine learningsubarachnoid hemorrhagesubdural hematoma

Identifiers

PMID41585390
PMCPMC12778542

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.