ArticleTrials2026
AI-driven navigated hematoma aspiration vs. conservative treatment for spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Trials, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07077343 (Comparison of AI-assisted Navigated Hematoma Aspiration With Conservative Treatment for Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage), which is not on this 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.
Comparison of AI-assisted Navigated Hematoma Aspiration With Conservative Treatment for Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSpontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) remains one of the most devastating types of stroke, with high mortality and long-term disability. Minimally invasive hematoma evacuation techniques have been developed to improve outcomes by reducing hematoma volume while minimizing surgical trauma compared with conventional craniotomy or conservative treatment. Artificial intelligence (AI) and neuronavigation enable optimized trajectory planning, real-time intraoperative guidance, and individualized treatment strategies, potentially leading to improved clinical outcomes compared with conservative treatment. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of AI-driven navigated hematoma aspiration with conservative therapy.
methodsThis multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled, open-label trial with blinded outcome assessment will enroll approximately 680 patients with spontaneous supratentorial ICH (20-50 mL) within 24 h of onset and a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score ≥ 8. Eligible patients aged 18-80 years will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either AI-assisted, navigation-guided hematoma aspiration plus best medical therapy or best medical therapy alone. Randomization will be centralized and stratified by center. The primary outcome is functional status at 6 months, assessed by the modified Rankin Scale, with mRS 0-2 defined as a favorable outcome. Secondary outcomes include mortality, hematoma volume reduction, neurological function, complications, quality of life, length of hospital stay, and cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: This trial is designed to provide robust evidence on the efficacy and safety of AI-guided hematoma aspiration for ICH. If successful, it has the potential to support a precise and minimally invasive treatment strategy and improve clinical outcomes.
trial registrationClinical Trials NCT07077343. Registered on July 21, 2025.
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.