ArticleStroke (Hoboken, N.J.)2024
Evaluation of an Artificial Intelligence Model for Identification of Intracranial Hemorrhage Subtypes on Computed Tomography of the Head.
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.
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.
- Towards Explainability in Deep Learning for Detection of Five Major Intracranial Hemorrhage Subtypes on Head CT Using Multi-window DICOM Imaging and Patient-Level Cross-Validation.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluation of an artificial intelligence model for the identification of obstructive hydrocephalus on computed tomography of the head.European radiology · 2026Article
- Diagnostic performance and confidence of an optimized deep-learning algorithm for the detection of intracranial hemorrhages.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Standalone AI Versus AI-Assisted Radiologists in Emergency ICH Detection: A Prospective, Multicenter Diagnostic Accuracy Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluation of an Artificial Intelligence Model for Identification of Mass Effect and Vasogenic Edema on CT of the Head.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.