SynthesisEuropean stroke journal2026
Deep learning-based automated segmentation of intracerebral haemorrhage, intraventricular haemorrhage and perihaematomal oedema on non-contrast CT.
Synthesis in European stroke journal, 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPrecise volumetric evaluation of intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH), intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) and perihaematomal oedema (PHO) is essential but manual segmentation is time-consuming and susceptible to variability. We aimed to develop and externally validate a deep learning model for simultaneous segmentation of ICH, IVH and PHO on non-contrast CT (NCCT) in patients with spontaneous ICH. PATIENTS AND
methodsA 3D U-net model was trained with 5-fold cross-validation on baseline NCCTs from 301 patients included in 2 prospective multicentre studies. External validation was performed on 141 baseline NCCTs from another multicentre study. Model performance was evaluated against manual ground truth segmentations using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman analyses.
resultsThe model achieved a median DSC of 0.93 (IQR 0.91-0.94) for ICH, 0.75 (IQR 0.57-0.82) for IVH and 0.53 (IQR 0.34-0.65) for PHO. Volume correlations were excellent for ICH (mean absolute and consistency ICC both 0.98 [95% CI 0.98-0.99]) and IVH (absolute ICC 0.97 [95% CI 0.92-0.98]; consistency ICC 0.98 [95% CI 0.96-0.99]), and moderate for PHO (absolute ICC 0.60 [95% CI -0.08-0.85]; consistency ICC 0.82 [95% CI 0.76-0.87]). Bland-Altman analyses demonstrated a bias for ICH of -0.48 mL (LoA -8.21 to 7.26), for IVH of -1.68 mL (LoA -7.35 to 3.99) and for PHO of 13.91 mL (LoA -4.85 to 32.68). DISCUSSION AND
conclusionThe model enables accurate automated segmentation of ICH, while IVH and PHO segmentation remain more challenging. Automated segmentations may already serve as reliable pre-segmentations in research, but require visual assessment and correction, in particular for IVH and PHO.
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.