Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 13, 2026

Endovascular Perforation Model for Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Combined with Magnetic Resonance Imaging MRI
Published on: December 16, 2021
Comparison between the formula 1/2ABC and 2/3Sh in intracerebral parenchyma hemorrhage
Jing Yan1, Kaijun Zhao, Jialan Sun
1Department of Neurology and Institute of Neurology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Background And Purpose:
The 1/2ABC formula is the method most commonly used in clinical practice to rapidly estimate intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) volume. We aimed to compare this method with the alternative '2/3Sh' formula for both regularly and irregularly-shaped hematomas.
Methods:
Computed tomography (CT) images from 344 ICH patients (median volume: 16·66 ml) were retrospectively reviewed. According to the maximum slice, the shape was classified into regular or irregular (multilobular, conical, and other). Volumes as determined by the 1/2ABC and 2/3Sh formulas were compared against the gold standard, computer-assisted planimetry, for various hematoma shapes.
Results:
With the 1/2ABC method, errors were seen non-significantly more frequently for irregularly-shaped hematomas [OR: 2.85 (95% CI: 0.65-12.50)]. The 1/2ABC method misclassified a greater proportion of hematomas as greater or less than 30 ml in volume: 7.0% (95% CI: 6.0-9.9%). Both the 1/2ABC and 2/3Sh formulas correlated well with gold standard (correlation coefficients >0.9 for each shape). While there was no statistically significant measurement error bias for either method, the 95% confidence intervals of the limit of agreement for 2/3Sh were tighter: -0.22 ml (-4.7-4.25 ml) versus 2·50 ml (-10.35-15.34 ml). Measurement errors were significantly greater with the 1/2ABC method, for both regular and irregular hematomas [1.17 ml (0.48-2.83 ml) versus 0.88 ml (0.42-1.68 ml) and 2.65 ml (1.07-5.88 ml) versus 0·99 ml (0.47-2.28 ml); P<0.05, respectively], although the magnitude of error would only rarely be clinically relevant for regular hematomas. Errors were most evident in assessing multilobular-shaped hematomas [6.49 ml (3.35-13.98 ml) versus 1.86 ml (0.96-9.94 ml); P<0·001].
Conclusions:
The 2/3Sh formula leads to fewer clinically-relevant hematoma volume misclassifications than the 1/2ABC formula, and is particularly superior in estimating volumes of irregularly-shaped hematomas.

