MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406962682 · doi:10.1161/str.56.suppl_1.tp166

Abstract TP166: Refining Deep Learning Application Diagnostic Accuracy in Intracerebral Hemorrhage (ICH): Focus on Subtle Hemorrhage Detection

2025· article· en· W4406962682 on OpenAlexaff
Maxime Tassy, Peter C. Chang, Daniel Chow, Christopher G. Filippi, Angela Ayobi, Christophe Avare, Yasmina Chaibi, Vladimir Laletin

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntracerebral hemorrhageStroke (engine)Focus (optics)AnesthesiaSubarachnoid hemorrhage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Deep-learning (DL)-based applications for Intracerebral Hemorrhage (ICH) detection on non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) scans have demonstrated the potential to enhance diagnostic accuracy and efficiency amid the increasing radiologist workload. However, the sensitivity and specificity of these applications remain suboptimal, particularly in cases with subtle ICH (ICH volume < 5ml) and when confounding factors are present. This study aimed to enhance DL-based application, reduce false positives and improve the detection of subtle ICH. Methods: This study compared two versions of the DL-based application for ICH detection (CINA-ICH, Avicenna.AI, La Ciotat, France), both using a hybrid 2D/3D architecture. The first version, CINA-ICH, was trained on 8,994 representative CT scans (1,034 ICH+) from a cohort diverse in patient characteristics and acquisition parameters. The improved version, CINA-ICH(i), was trained on the same dataset enriched with 600 challenging cases (several confounding factors present) and included a specialised 3D network for subtle ICH detection, that underwent independent training on 2,238 CT-scans including 399 subtle ICH. The evaluation dataset included 479 NCCT scans (131 ICH+ including 24 subtle ICH) from over 200 U.S. hospitals, 4 scanner makers and 35 scanner models. Ground truth was determined by consensus among three board-certified radiologists. Sensitivity, Specificity, Accuracy and Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC) of CINA-ICH and CINA-ICH(i) were evaluated with a detailed analysis of false positive cases and subtle ICHs. Results: CINA-ICH(i) demonstrated a statistically significant (p<0.05) improvement in diagnostic performance compared to CINA-ICH: 88.5% vs. 83.2% for sensitivity, 94% vs. 85.6% for specificity, and 92.5% vs. 85% for accuracy. MCC for CINA-ICH(i) was improved from 0.65 to 0.81. CINA-ICH(i) reduced false positives from 50 to 21, effectively minimizing the detection of spurious findings and anatomical structures such as falx cerebri and sinuses. Additionally, CINA-ICH(i) enhanced the recognition of subtle ICH, detecting 37.5% of cases compared to only 8.3% detected by CINA-ICH. Conclusions: The implemented strategy to enhance the DL-based algorithm successfully increased ICH detection accuracy. This advancement demonstrates the potential for optimized algorithms to better support clinical decision-making by reducing false positives and improving the detection of subtle ICH cases.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage ResearchFrench-language works237,207