ReviewGeroScience2026
CT-based prediction of hematoma expansion and adverse outcomes after intracerebral hemorrhage: evidence appraisal, artificial intelligence translation, and GeroScience perspectives.
Review in GeroScience, 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
Spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is a highly lethal and disabling form of stroke, in which hematoma expansion (HE) is a major and potentially modifiable determinant of early neurological deterioration and poor functional outcome. Computed tomography (CT) remains the first-line imaging modality for acute ICH and provides essential information for early HE risk stratification. However, current evidence is dispersed across conventional CT signs, composite scores, radiomics, machine learning, and deep learning approaches, many of which have been reported descriptively without sufficient comparison of clinical utility, validation quality, or translational readiness. This review critically evaluates CT-based prediction of HE and adverse outcomes after spontaneous ICH. We compare contrast-enhanced markers, including the spot sign, leakage sign, and iodine sign, with non-contrast CT markers such as the blend sign, black hole sign, island sign, satellite sign, hypodensity sign, swirl sign, hematoma shape, and density heterogeneity, focusing on sensitivity, specificity, reproducibility, availability, and clinical applicability. We further assess composite prediction models and artificial intelligence approaches, emphasizing limitations related to small cohorts, overfitting, dataset heterogeneity, insufficient external validation, interpretability, and workflow integration. Given the scope of GeroScience, we also discuss how vascular aging, cerebral amyloid angiopathy, frailty, anticoagulant exposure, and age-associated vulnerability to secondary injury may influence HE risk and outcome prediction. Future progress will require interpretable, multimodal, prospectively validated models that integrate CT imaging, clinical variables, biomarkers, and aging-related factors to support individualized management of ICH.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42601546What 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.