Evidence Hub

Predictive performance of non-contrast CT signs for hematoma expansion: A comparative analysis across traditional, revised, and conservative definitions

Zhu C, Sun J, Li H, Yang L, Wei H

Neuroradiology, 2026

685 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Hematoma expansion (HE) is a critical determinant of neurological deterioration after spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). While non-contrast CT (NCCT) signs (Blend sign, Black hole sign, Hypodensities) are established predictors under traditional parenchymal-volume-based HE definitions, their performance under a revised composite definition that includes intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) expansion remains unvalidated.

METHODS: In a retrospective cohort of 685 spontaneous ICH patients, HE was assessed using three definitions: traditional (parenchymal increase > 6 mL or > 33%), revised (traditional criteria and/or IVH expansion [≥ 1 mL or new IVH]), and conservative revised (IVH threshold > 2 mL). Multivariable logistic regression evaluated the independent association of NCCT signs with each definition. Model discrimination was compared using ROC analysis.

RESULTS: HE incidence was 17.08% (traditional), 21.90% (revised), and 20.15% (conservative revised). All three NCCT signs remained strong, independent predictors across all definitions after full adjustment (all p 12.5 mL or > 50% growth) and identified an additional subgroup with isolated IVH expansion.

CONCLUSION: The Blend sign, Black hole sign, and Hypodensities are robust predictors of HE that generalize effectively from traditional to IVH-inclusive composite definitions. Their predictive utility, combined with the time-dependent risk profile, supports their use for early, universal risk…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 685 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free