ArticleNeuroradiology2026
Real-world performance and misclassification patterns of deep learning for intracranial hemorrhage detection.
Article in Neuroradiology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the real-world diagnostic accuracy and systematic misclassification patterns of a deep learning algorithm (Hevi AI) for detecting intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) on non-contrast head computed tomography (CT) within a single-center cohort.
methodsThis retrospective, single-center study included 1,617 emergency non-contrast head CT examinations. Two expert radiologists served as the reference standard. The algorithm's binary detection performance (sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value [NPV]) and subtyping accuracy were analyzed. Statistical analyses evaluated age and sex differences between false-positive (FP) and true-negative (TN) cases.
resultsThe reference standard ICH prevalence was 13.4% (n = 218). The algorithm demonstrated 98.17% sensitivity, 94.71% specificity and 99.70% NPV for hemorrhage detection. Specificity demonstrated an inverse relationship with patient age (96.95% in < 50 years, 93.04% in 50-70 years, and 88.54% in > 70 years). Among 74 FP cases, isolated subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) was the most frequent misclassification (62.16%). The mean age of FP cases (56.3 ± 22.3 years) was significantly higher than that of TN cases (40.5 ± 25.2 years) (p < 0.001). Subtyping errors (n = 96) predominantly showed an "over-labeling" pattern: 49 cases (51.0%) involved unnecessary epidural hemorrhage components added to subdural hemorrhages, and 31 cases (32.3%) involved unnecessary SAH additions.
conclusionsWhile the Hevi AI algorithm demonstrates high sensitivity and an excellent NPV that support its utility in worklist prioritization, it exhibits specific neuroanatomical blind spots. Ischemic processes, vasogenic edema, and age-related structural changes are major sources of FP alerts. Furthermore, the algorithm systematically struggles to differentiate fine extra-axial boundaries, leading to over-labeling. Recognizing these specific failure patterns and geriatric variations is essential for safe clinical integration and accurate interpretation of AI-assisted neuroimaging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42909520What 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.