ArticleBMC medical imaging2026
Deep learning prediction of contrast extravasation versus intracranial hemorrhage after thrombectomy in patients with acute stroke.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIt is difficult to distinguish the nature of contrast extravasation (CE) vs. intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) on immediate postprocedural computed tomography (CT) after endovascular thrombectomy. This differentiation between CE and ICH carries important clinical implications, and this study aims to explore and validate the feasibility of approaches based on machine learning algorithm.
methodsPatients with the hyperdensity on the immediate post endovascular treatment (EVT) CT scans were enrolled. Clinical and radiologic data of these patients were collected and nature of hyperdensity was identified based on the comparison of the immediate post-EVT CT scans vs. CT scans obtained 24 h post-EVT. After images with hyperdense lesion were labelled, two deep learning models based on convolutional neural network (CNN) were derived and validated. Model 1 was derived and internally evaluated with five folds cross-validation, and model 2 was fitted and evaluated on radiographs of whole patients who were randomly divided into the training set, validation set, and testing set. Moreover, the performance of model 2 on the testing set was compared with a support vector machine (SVM) model and a recursive partitioning and regression trees (RPART) model based on CT Hounsfield Units (HU) values.
resultsA total of 106 patients were enrolled, 63 patients were identified as CE, and 43 as ICH. Model 1 accomplished classification performance with the mean AUC of 0.955 ± 0.024 on the validation set. The performance of model 2 reached an AUC of 0.956 on testing set, which was higher than those of SVM model and RPART model.
conclusionCNN-based deep learning algorithm demonstrated favorable classification performance in distinguishing between CE and ICH on post-EVT brain CT scans, and it provide a feasible exploratory tool for this clinical differentiation task.
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.