ArticlePediatric radiology2026
Performance of an adult-trained AI tool for intracranial hemorrhage detection on head CT in children aged 6-17 years.
Article in Pediatric 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMost commercially available artificial intelligence (AI) tools in radiology are trained and approved for adult use, creating an access gap for pediatric patients. Intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) detection is a common adult AI application without pediatric FDA clearance.
objectiveTo evaluate the performance of an FDA-cleared, adult-trained AI tool for ICH detection on non-contrast head CT (NCHCT) in pediatric patients aged 6-17 years. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective, multi-institution study analyzed consecutive pediatric NCHCTs performed between January 2017 and November 2022 across 21 sites. Inclusion criteria were patient age 6-17 years and adequate imaging quality. Radiology reports were classified as ICH-positive or ICH-negative using a validated natural language processing (NLP) tool. The AI tool analyzed DICOM images independently. Discordant AI-NLP cases underwent blinded adjudication by three radiologists to establish ground truth. Performance metrics includingsensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated with Wilson 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsThe cohort included 1,996 NCHCTs (768 females, 1,223 males, 5 unknown). ICH prevalence was 8.6% (172/1,996). Compared with ground truth, AI achieved 94.2% sensitivity (162/172, 95% CI, 89.6-97.2%), 94.7% specificity (1,727/1,824, 95% CI, 93.6-95.7%), 94.6% accuracy (1,889/1,996, 95% CI, 93.6-95.6%), 62.5% PPV (162/259, 95% CI, 57.8-67.0%), and 99.4% NPV (1,727/1,737, 95% CI, 99.0-99.7%). AI correctly identified ICH in cases missed by radiologists, but false positives were common, most often due to streak artifact (21.6%) and misclassified anatomy (18.6%). Interrater agreement for ground truth adjudication was substantial (κ=0.683).
conclusionAn adult-trained AI tool demonstrated high sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for ICH detection in pediatric patients aged 6-17 years, comparable to its adult performance. Selective adaptation of adult-trained AI tools could expand access to AI-assisted triage for certain pediatric populations, potentially reducing delays in critical imaging interpretation. However, prospective validation is required before clinical deployment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41619014What 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.