Automated identification and quantification of traumatic brain injury from CT scans: Are we there yet?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review for understanding the availability and limitations of artificial intelligence (AI) approaches that could automatically identify and quantify computed tomography (CT) findings in traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHODS: Systematic review, in accordance with PRISMA 2020 and SPIRIT-AI extension guidelines, with a search of 4 databases (Medline, Embase, IEEE Xplore, and Web of Science) was performed to find AI studies that automated the clinical tasks for identifying and quantifying CT findings of TBI-related abnormalities. RESULTS: A total of 531 unique publications were reviewed, which resulted in 66 articles that met our inclusion criteria. The following components for identification and quantification regarding TBI were covered and automated by existing AI studies: identification of TBI-related abnormalities; classification of intracranial hemorrhage types; slice-, pixel-, and voxel-level localization of hemorrhage; measurement of midline shift; and measurement of hematoma volume. Automated identification of obliterated basal cisterns was not investigated in the existing AI studies. Most of the AI algorithms were based on deep neural networks that were trained on 2- or 3-dimensional CT imaging datasets. CONCLUSION: We identified several important TBI-related CT findings that can be automatically identified and quantified with AI. A combination of these techniques may provide useful tools to enhance reproducibility of TBI identification and quantification by supporting radiologists and clinicians in their TBI assessments and reducing subjective human factors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".