ArticleScientific reports2026
External validity of deep learning solution for spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage detection on head CT scans.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We externally validated the performance of deep learning (DL) solution for detection of spontaneous intracerebral (ICH), intraventricular (IVH) and subarachnoid hemorrhages (SAH) on non-contrast enhanced head CT scans (NCCTs). We analyzed 901 NCCTs collected retrospectively from two Swiss hospitals: University Hospital Zürich (USZ) and HOCH Health Ostschweiz, Kantonsspital St. Gallen (KSSG). Of these 901 NCCTs, 81 had spontaneous ICH, IVH or SAH. The diagnostic accuracy was evaluated using the radiologist's reports as the reference standard. The DL solution correctly identified 74 out of the 81 intracranial hemorrhages (sensitivity 91.4%). In the USZ cohort, the sensitivity was 88.5% and the specificity was 89.7%. Using the original KSSG-NCCTs, the DL solution had a sensitivity of 100.0% and a specificity of 47.5%. After adjusting the KSSG-NCCTs pixel matrix to a standardized 512 × 512 resolution the KSSG cohort sensitivity remained at 100.0%, and the specificity increased to 74.0%. The overall specificity was 78.4% when using the original imaging data. The overall specificity increased to 85.5% when using the padded KSSG-NCCTs along with original imaging data from USZ. Particularly the specificity varied substantially depending on imaging acquisition parameters. In a clinical setting, this would mean a high variability in a false positive rate.
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.