ArticleJMIR formative research2025
Radiomics-Based AI Model to Assist Clinicians in Intracranial Hemorrhage Diagnosis: External Validation Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Early identification of the etiology of spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) could significantly contribute to planning a suitable treatment strategy. A notable radiomics-based artificial intelligence (AI) model for classifying causes of spontaneous ICH from brain computed tomography scans has been previously proposed. Objective: This study aimed to externally validate and assess the utility of this AI model. Methods: This study used 69 computed tomography scans from a separate cohort to evaluate the AI model's performance in classifying nontraumatic ICHs into primary, tumorous, and vascular malformation related. We also assessed the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of clinicians, radiologists, and trainees in identifying the ICH causes before and after using the model's assistance. The performances were statistically analyzed by specialty and expertise levels. Results: The AI model achieved an overall accuracy of 0.65 in classifying the 3 causes of ICH. The model's assistance improved overall diagnostic performance, narrowing the gap between nonradiology and radiology groups, as well as between trainees and experts. The accuracy increased from 0.68 to 0.72, from 0.72 to 0.76, from 0.69 to 0.74, and from 0.72 to 0.75 for nonradiologists, radiologists, trainees, and specialists, respectively. With the model's support, radiology professionals demonstrated the highest accuracy, highlighting the model's potential to enhance diagnostic consistency across different levels. Conclusions: When applied to an external dataset, the accuracy of the AI model in categorizing spontaneous ICHs based on radiomics decreased. However, using the model as an assistant substantially improved the performance of all reader groups, including trainees and radiology and nonradiology specialists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.