The role of artificial intelligence in the diagnosis and prognosis of traumatic brain injury based on brain CT scans: a systematic review.

Abstract

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of emergency department visits and a major contributor to injury-related mortality and long-term neurological disability. Non-contrast computed tomography (CT) is the gold-standard imaging modality for the rapid diagnosis of TBI. Clinical outcomes depend strongly on early detection and prompt acute management. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based models may support faster automated identification of traumatic findings and early prediction of patient prognosis. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, and the Cochrane Library in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines to evaluate AI-based models for automated detection of TBI-related findings on CT and for prediction of clinical outcomes. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed using QUADAS-2 for diagnostic accuracy studies and PROBAST + AI for prediction model studies. Twenty-two studies were included. Sixteen studies evaluated diagnostic tasks and 10 evaluated prognostic outcomes, with four studies contributing to both categories. Diagnostic performance was generally high, with many studies reporting AUC values approaching or exceeding 0.90, particularly for larger lesion volumes.Prognostic performance was more variable, with moderate to high discrimination and substantial heterogeneity. Only 9 studies incorporated independent external validation, and performance was frequently lower in external cohorts. All prognostic model studies were judged to be at high overall risk of bias using PROBAST + AI, and most diagnostic accuracy studies also demonstrated high or unclear risk of bias in at least one QUADAS-2 domain, most frequently in patient selection. AI-based models applied to brain CT demonstrate strong technical performance for both diagnostic and prognostic tasks in TBI. However, most studies relied on retrospective designs and lacked independent external validation which limits models generalizability and raises concern for potential overfitting. Prospective, multicenter studies with standardized methodologies and rigorous external validation are required before widespread clinical implementation.