ArticlePeerJ2026
Development and evaluation of a deep learning-assisted diagnostic support system for radiographer preliminary clinical evaluation of intracranial hemorrhage.
Article in PeerJ, 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Intracranial hemorrhage is life-threatening and requires prompt and accurate diagnosis. Non-contrast head computed tomography is the standard first-line examination, but detecting small hemorrhages and classifying multiple subtypes require substantial expertise. Workforce shortages and increasing diagnostic workloads, especially in emergency settings, further challenge timely decision-making. Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted interpretation has shown promise for improving accuracy and efficiency. This retrospective study evaluated the effect of AI assistance on the diagnostic performance of radiologic technologists (RTs). Methods: We analyzed the data for 100 non-contrast head computed tomography examinations (50 positive and 50 negative for hemorrhage) obtained from the Japan Medical Image Database. The interpretations of the five RTs (5-12 years of experience) with and without AI assistance were compared with those of two radiologists. The detection targets were intraparenchymal, intraventricular, subarachnoid, subdural, epidural, and any hemorrhages. We calculated the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. The differences in the AUC for the AI-assisted and unassisted readings were tested using the DeLong method with Bonferroni correction. Results: Significant AUC improvements were observed for five of the 30 reader-task comparisons (17%) after Bonferroni correction. These improvements were all related to intraventricular ( Conclusion: AI assistance significantly improved RT detection of challenging subtypes such as intraventricular and subdural hemorrhages. However, it did not improve the diagnostic accuracy for detecting any hemorrhage overall (
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.