ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Lightweight deep learning framework for intracranial hemorrhage detection in brain CT scans.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intracranial hemorrhage, including clinically significant intracranial hemorrhage conditions, is a life-threatening condition in which rapid and accurate detection through brain computed tomography (CT) scans is crucial for patient survival. Manual interpretation of these scans remains time-consuming and may vary between observers, leading to potential diagnostic delays. This study investigates the application of lightweight and mobile-optimized deep-learning models for the automated detection of intracranial hemorrhage using a curated subset of a publicly available brain CT hemorrhage dataset, for automated intracranial hemorrhage detection. A custom convolutional neural network (CNN) and two transfer-learning architectures MobileNetV2 and EfficientNet-B0 were evaluated in terms of diagnostic accuracy, generalization, and computational efficiency. Among the tested models, MobileNetV2 demonstrated the highest overall performance, achieving an accuracy of 87% and an AUC of 0.94, while the lightweight CNN achieved 79% accuracy. EfficientNet-B0 also showed competitive results but required greater computational resources. The findings demonstrate that lightweight neural architectures can achieve reliable diagnostic performance while remaining suitable for assistive decision-support applications, although further improvement in sensitivity and clinical validation are required. The study highlights that carefully optimized deep-learning systems can support preliminary clinical assessment; however, additional validation and performance refinement are necessary before practical real-world deployment.
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.