ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Transforming Intracerebral Hemorrhage Care with Artificial Intelligence: Opportunities, Challenges, and Future Directions.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multi-Omics Integration in Stroke: Neuroinflammatory Endotypes, Immune Cell Crosstalk, and Precision Biomarker Discovery.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in neurovascular surgery: advancing diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- Interpretable machine learning for presurgical differentiation of Hürthle cell carcinoma and adenoma: a SHAP-augmented approach.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is associated with substantial mortality and morbidity. Current management paradigms rely heavily on the rapid interpretation of neuroimaging and clinical data, yet are frequently constrained by limitations in processing speed, diagnostic accuracy, and prognostic precision. Artificial intelligence (AI), specifically machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL), offers transformative potential to circumvent these challenges across the entire continuum of ICH care. This comprehensive review synthesizes the rapidly evolving landscape of AI applications in ICH management. Through a systematic evaluation of recent literature, we examine studies focused on the development, validation, or critical appraisal of AI-driven technologies for ICH care. Our analysis encompasses automated neuroimaging, computer-assisted surgical navigation, brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), prognostic modeling, and fundamental research into disease mechanisms. AI has demonstrated performance comparable to that of clinical experts in automating hematoma segmentation, predicting complications such as hematoma expansion, and refining surgical planning via augmented reality. Furthermore, BCIs present innovative therapeutic avenues for motor rehabilitation. However, the translation of these technological advances into routine clinical practice is impeded by substantial challenges, including data heterogeneity, model opacity ("black-box" issues), workflow integration barriers, regulatory ambiguities, and ethical concerns surrounding accountability and algorithmic bias. The integration of AI into ICH care signifies a paradigm shift from standardized treatment protocols toward dynamic, precision medicine. Realizing this vision necessitates interdisciplinary collaboration to engineer robust, generalizable, and interpretable AI systems. Key priorities include the establishment of large-scale multimodal data repositories, the advancement of explainable AI (XAI) frameworks, the execution of rigorous prospective clinical trials to validate efficacy, and the implementation of adaptive regulatory and ethical guidelines. By systematically addressing these barriers, AI can evolve from a mere analytical tool into an indispensable clinical partner, ultimately optimizing patient outcomes.
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.