SynthesisNeurocritical care2026
AI Models for Surgical Decision Support in Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage: A Systematic Review in Relation to Trials and Guidelines.
Synthesis in Neurocritical care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Intracerebral Hemorrhage: Current Applications and Future Perspectives.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) applications for spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) are rapidly expanding, particularly in perioperative imaging analysis and surgical decision support. Because most predictive AI models are developed using independent clinical datasets, they are not expected to explicitly reproduce randomized trial protocols or guideline decision rules. We therefore conducted a descriptive systematic review and evidence-mapping study to crosswalk AI model inputs, predicted targets, and outputs to major surgical trials and clinical guidelines (ENRICH, MIND, MISTIE III, SWITCH, STICH II, CLEAR, and AHA/ASA), identifying areas of overlap where AI operationalizes trial-relevant constructs and areas where AI-derived predictors may be hypothesis-generating for future trial design. Of 37 records identified (31 from database searches and 6 from hand searches), 21 studies met eligibility criteria. Publications increased after 2021, peaking in 2024 (n = 5) and remaining in 2025 (n = 3). Most cohorts were single-center (13/21), mainly from China, the USA, and Germany. Inputs were predominantly non-contrast computed tomography (CT); one study used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for trajectory planning. Deep learning was the most common analysis method (14/21), followed by classical machine learning (4/21) and radiomics-based methods (2/21). AI applications focused on perioperative imaging tasks, including eligibility assessment, postoperative quality assurance, trajectory planning, workflow optimization, and treatment-effect modeling. Three studies demonstrated direct alignment with surgical trial thresholds (e.g., MISTIE/CLEAR), ten were indirectly aligned, and eight had no clear linkage. AI models add value to imaging-based perioperative assessment in ICH and frequently target constructs central to trial- and guideline-based decision-making, even when trial criteria are not explicitly encoded. This crosswalk clarifies where AI outputs overlap with trial- and guideline-relevant constructs and where AI-derived decision boundaries diverge, reinforcing measurement targets that can be benchmarked against existing evidence and identifying candidates for hypothesis-generating evaluation in future studies.
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.