ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Prediction of intracerebral hemorrhage hematoma expansion: value of a novel deep learning system score.
Article in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo develop and validate a deep learning system (DLS) model predicting hematoma expansion (HE) based on non-contrast (NC) CT and a score combining with clinical variables. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe multicenter retrospective dataset (R), the multicenter prospective dataset (P1), and the single-center prospective dataset (P2) enrolled 2350, 460, and 96 intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) patients for analysis, respectively. The DLS model was developed, validated, and tested in R-development (R-dev), R-validation (R-val), and P1, respectively. After exploring clinical predictors of HE using multivariable logistic regression on P1-development (P1-dev), a five-point score "ARCHES" (Ai-Reinforced intraCerebral Hemorrhage hematoma Expansion Score) combining clinical predictors with the DLS model was created. We compared the discrimination of the ARCHES, DLS, with other models using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and DeLong test.
resultsThe areas under the curve (AUC) of the DLS model were 0.781 (95% CI: 0.761-0.800) in R-dev, and showed similar results in P1. The ARCHES score, which includes DLS, baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), onset-to-NCCT time and regular antihypertension history, showed significantly better discrimination (AUC, 0.820; 95% CI: 0.775-0.859) than the blend sign and any hypodensity and time from onset-to-NCCT (BAT) score and the meta-analysis prediction model in P1-dev, P1-validation (P1-val) and P2.
conclusionsThe DLS model provides an automated, objective, rapid, and readily deployable tool for HE prediction only based on NCCT. The DLS model and the ARCHES score significantly improve risk stratification with better performance than previous HE prediction models, enabling timely clinical decisions for intensive monitoring and anti-HE therapy. KEY POINTS: Question Lacking reliable NCCT-based deep learning models (DLS) and a score combining with clinical variables for HE prediction. Findings A NCCT-based DLS model and a score combining with clinical variables were developed and tested, both showing good discrimination and calibration in predicting HE. Clinical relevant The DLS model enables automated and rapid HE prediction, while the easy-to-use score combines imaging and clinical variables, making it ideal for use in emergency settings. Both models improve risk stratification and support clinical decision-making in acute intracranial hemorrhage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41609766What 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.