Cited by 1,020Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationMedical Imaging and Analysis

Deep learning algorithms for detection of critical findings in head CT scans: a retrospective study

Chilamkurthy, Sasank, Ghosh, Rohit, Tanamala, Swetha, Biviji, Mustafa, Campeau, Norbert G, Venugopal, Vasantha Kumar, Mahajan, Vidur, Rao, Pooja +1 more·2018·The Lancet

Abstract

Background Non-contrast head CT scan is the current standard for initial imaging of patients with head trauma or stroke symptoms. We aimed to develop and validate a set of deep learning algorithms for automated detection of the following key findings from these scans: intracranial haemorrhage and its types (ie, intraparenchymal, intraventricular, subdural, extradural, and subarachnoid); calvarial fractures; midline shift; and mass effect.Methods We retrospectively collected a dataset containing 313 318 head CT scans together with their clinical reports from around 20 centres in India between Jan 1, 2011, and June 1, 2017. A randomly selected part of this dataset (Qure25k dataset) was used for validation and the rest was used to develop algorithms. An additional validation dataset (CQ500 dataset) was collected in two batches from centres that were different from those used for the development and Qure25k datasets. We excluded postoperative scans and scans of patients younger than 7 years. The original clinical radiology report and consensus of three independent radiologists were considered as gold standard for the Qure25k and CQ500 datasets, respectively. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) were primarily used to assess the algorithms.Findings The Qure25k dataset contained 21 095 scans (mean age 43 years; 9030 [43%] female patients), and the CQ500 dataset consisted of 214 scans in the first batch (mean age 43 years; 94 [44%] female patients) and 277 scans in the second batch (mean age 52 years; 84 [30%] female patients). On the Qure25k dataset, the algorithms achieved an AUC of 0·92 (95% CI 0·91-0·93) for detecting intracranial haemorrhage (0·90 [0·89-0·91] for intraparenchymal, 0·96 [0·94-0·97] for intraventricular, 0·92 [0·90-0·93] for subdural, 0·93 [0·91-0·95] for extradural, and 0·90 [0·89-0·92] for subarachnoid). On the CQ500 dataset, AUC was 0·94 (0·92-0·97) for intracranial haemorrhage (0·95 [0·93-0·98], 0·93 [0·87-1·00], 0·95 [0·91-0·99], 0·97 [0·91-1·00], and 0·96 [0·92-0·99], respectively). AUCs on the Qure25k dataset were 0·92 (0·91-0·94) for calvarial fractures, 0·93 (0·91-0·94) for midline shift, and 0·86 (0·85-0·87) for mass effect, while AUCs on the CQ500 dataset were 0·96 (0·92-1·00), 0·97 (0·94-1·00), and 0·92 (0·89-0·95), respectively.Interpretation Our results show that deep learning algorithms can accurately identify head CT scan abnormalities requiring urgent attention, opening up the possibility to use these algorithms to automate the triage process.Funding Qure.ai.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31645-3

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chilamkurthy, S., Ghosh, R., Tanamala, S., Biviji, M., Campeau, N. G., Venugopal, V. K., Mahajan, V., Rao, P., & Warier, P.
Affiliations
  • Qure.ai Technologies Private Limited (India) (IN)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Chilamkurthy, Sasank
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-12
Volume
392
Issue
10162
Pages
2388-2396
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2896817483
Cited by
1,020
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 96 · 2025: 144 · 2024: 163 · 2023: 148 · 2022: 115 · 2021: 146 · 2020: 134 · 2019: 66 · 2018: 7
FWCI
23.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Brain Tumor Detection and Classification
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Medical Imaging and Analysis
Keywords
automated detection, head CT, intracranial hemorrhage, intraventricular hemorrhage, subdural hematoma, subarachnoid hemorrhage, epidural hematoma, intraparenchymal hemorrhage, calvarial fractures, midline shift, mass effect, deep learning
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Algorithms, Brain Injuries, Head, Humans, Retrospective Studies, Skull Fractures, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Triage, Trauma Severity Indices, Intracranial Hemorrhages, Datasets as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review