SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2026
Accuracy of Deep Learning in Detecting Cerebral Microbleeds: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTraditionally, the number and location of cerebral microbleeds (CMBs) are manually calculated based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) characteristics such as shape, size, and signal features. Although accurate, manual detection requires expert interpretation and is costly. Therefore, it is necessary to explore an effective auxiliary detection method. In recent years, deep learning (DL) has been increasingly used in the detection of cerebral hemorrhage. Some studies have explored image-based DL models for diagnosing CMBs. Nevertheless, systematic evidence regarding their diagnostic accuracy is lacking.
objectiveThis review aimed to assess the accuracy of DL models in detecting CMBs and inform the development of intelligent detection tools.
methodsThis study was reported in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (registration ID CRD42024628447). IEEE, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and PubMed were comprehensively searched up to November 1, 2024, and the database search was subsequently updated on July 5, 2026, to collect publicly published original studies on DL for detecting CMBs. The risk of bias of eligible studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Subgroup analyses were performed according to the level of analysis (lesion level and patient level) and the method of obtaining the diagnostic 4-fold table at the lesion level (direct extraction and reconstruction).
resultsAt the patient level, 5 studies were included, all of which developed models based on MRI. The meta-analysis results suggested that the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were 0.89 (95% CI 0.76-0.96), 0.86 (95% CI 0.77-0.92), 6.3 (95% CI 3.5-11.6), 0.13 (95% CI 0.05-0.32), and 50 (95% CI 12-212), respectively. At the lesion level, the sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR were 0.96 (95% CI 0.93-0.98), 0.98 (95% CI 0.94-0.99), 39.5 (95% CI 16.8-92.7), 0.04 (95% CI 0.02-0.07), and 1061 (95% CI 293-3848), respectively. In the subgroup of direct extraction of the diagnostic 4-fold tables at the lesion level, the sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR were 0.98 (95% CI 0.95-0.99), 0.98 (95% CI 0.90-0.99), 40.2 (95% CI 9.3-79.9), 0.02 (95% CI 0.01-0.05), and 1738 (95% CI 174-17,385), respectively. In the subgroup of reconstruction of the diagnostic 4-fold tables at the lesion level, the sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR were 0.95 (95% CI 0.89-0.97), 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-0.99), 41.2 (95% CI 21.2-79.9), 0.06 (95% CI 0.03-0.12), and 736 (95% CI 224-2418), respectively.
conclusionsDL models based on MRI appear to show favorable diagnostic performance in detecting CMBs. Given the small number of included studies, more multicenter studies are warranted to facilitate the development of more generalizable detection tools.
trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42024628447; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024628447.
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.