Reviewer #1 (Public review):
Summary:
The study explores the use of Transport-based morphometry (TBM) to predict hematoma expansion and growth 24 hours post-event, leveraging Non-Contrast Computed Tomography (NCCT) scans combined with clinical and location-based information. The research holds significant clinical potential, as it could enable early intervention for patients at high risk of hematoma expansion, thereby improving outcomes. The study is well-structured, with detailed methodological descriptions and a clear presentation of results. However, the practical utility of the predictive tool requires further validation, as the current findings are based on retrospective data. Additionally, the impact of this tool on clinical decision-making and patient outcomes needs to be further investigated.
Strengths
(1) Clinical Relevance: The study addresses a critical need in clinical practice by providing a tool that could enhance diagnostic accuracy and guide early interventions, potentially improving patient outcomes.
(2) Feature Visualization: The visualization and interpretation of features associated with hematoma expansion risk are highly valuable for clinicians, aiding in the understanding of model-derived insights and facilitating clinical application.
(3) Methodological Rigor: The study provides a thorough description of methods, results, and discussions, ensuring transparency and reproducibility.
Weaknesses:
(1) The limited sample size in this study raises concerns about potential model overfitting. While the reported AUCROC of 0.71 may be acceptable for clinical use, the robustness of the model could be further enhanced by employing techniques such as k-fold cross-validation. This approach, which aggregates predictive results across multiple folds, mimics the consensus of diagnoses from multiple clinicians and could improve the model's reliability for clinical application. Additionally, in clinical practice, the utility of the model may depend on specific conditions, such as achieving high specificity to identify patients at risk of hematoma expansion, thereby enabling timely interventions. Consequently, while AUC is a commonly used metric, it may not fully capture the model's clinical applicability. The authors should consider discussing alternative performance metrics, such as specificity and sensitivity, which are more aligned with clinical needs. Furthermore, evaluating the model's performance in real-world clinical scenarios would provide valuable insights into its practical utility and potential impact on patient outcomes.
(2) The authors compared the performance of TBM with clinical and location-based information, as well as other machine learning methods. While this comparison highlights the relative strengths of TBM, the study would benefit from providing concrete evidence on how this tool could enhance clinicians' ability to assess hematoma expansion in practice. For instance, it remains unclear whether integrating the model's output with a clinician's own assessment would lead to improved diagnostic accuracy or decision-making. Investigating this aspect-such as through studies evaluating the combined performance of clinician judgment and model predictions-could significantly enhance the tool's practical value.
