Using clinical and radiographic variables to predict intracranial aneurysm rupture status with machine learning.

Surgical neurology international Pub Date : 2025-07-18 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.25259/SNI_498_2025
Mark D Johnson, Pradyumna Elavarthi, Seth Street, Samer S Hoz, Anca L Ralescu, Charles J Prestigiacomo
{"title":"Using clinical and radiographic variables to predict intracranial aneurysm rupture status with machine learning.","authors":"Mark D Johnson, Pradyumna Elavarthi, Seth Street, Samer S Hoz, Anca L Ralescu, Charles J Prestigiacomo","doi":"10.25259/SNI_498_2025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>With excitement in the medical community around artificial intelligence, machine learning (ML) techniques have been applied to correlate clinical and radiographic variables with intracranial aneurysm (IA) rupture status. In this study, we applied various ML techniques, including random forest (RF), XGBoost (XGB), support vector machines (SVM), and multi-layer perceptron (MLP), to predict IA rupture status.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The dataset consisted of 178 IAs each with 53 clinical and radiographic features for analysis. We removed features with high correlation (>0.8) with respect to the target variable to reduce redundancy. We applied grid search to fine-tune the hyperparameters for each model. Each model was evaluated across five iterations of 5-fold cross-validation. Overall performance metrics (accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score) were extracted. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the area under the curve (AUC) scores between models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The most common locations were internal carotid artery (42), anterior communicating artery (41), middle cerebral artery (32), and posterior communicating artery (25). The AUC for the RF (0.85) and XGB (0.76) models were significantly higher than those for the SVM (0.69) and MLP (0.65) models (<i>P</i> < 0.05). There was no statistical difference in accuracy between RF and XBG models (<i>P</i> = 0.144). Fractal dimension ranked as the most important feature for model performance across all models. Three-dimensional (3D) shape features made up 8 of the 15 most important features driving model performance.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Among the models, RF achieved the highest accuracy (85%) with balanced precision and recall. Across models 3D geometric features drove model performance, highlighting the importance of these features in predicting rupture status.</p>","PeriodicalId":94217,"journal":{"name":"Surgical neurology international","volume":"16 ","pages":"298"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12361647/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical neurology international","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25259/SNI_498_2025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: With excitement in the medical community around artificial intelligence, machine learning (ML) techniques have been applied to correlate clinical and radiographic variables with intracranial aneurysm (IA) rupture status. In this study, we applied various ML techniques, including random forest (RF), XGBoost (XGB), support vector machines (SVM), and multi-layer perceptron (MLP), to predict IA rupture status.

Methods: The dataset consisted of 178 IAs each with 53 clinical and radiographic features for analysis. We removed features with high correlation (>0.8) with respect to the target variable to reduce redundancy. We applied grid search to fine-tune the hyperparameters for each model. Each model was evaluated across five iterations of 5-fold cross-validation. Overall performance metrics (accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score) were extracted. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the area under the curve (AUC) scores between models.

Results: The most common locations were internal carotid artery (42), anterior communicating artery (41), middle cerebral artery (32), and posterior communicating artery (25). The AUC for the RF (0.85) and XGB (0.76) models were significantly higher than those for the SVM (0.69) and MLP (0.65) models (P < 0.05). There was no statistical difference in accuracy between RF and XBG models (P = 0.144). Fractal dimension ranked as the most important feature for model performance across all models. Three-dimensional (3D) shape features made up 8 of the 15 most important features driving model performance.

Conclusion: Among the models, RF achieved the highest accuracy (85%) with balanced precision and recall. Across models 3D geometric features drove model performance, highlighting the importance of these features in predicting rupture status.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

使用临床和影像学变量预测颅内动脉瘤破裂状态与机器学习。
背景:随着医学界对人工智能的兴奋,机器学习(ML)技术已被应用于将临床和影像学变量与颅内动脉瘤(IA)破裂状态相关联。在这项研究中,我们应用了各种机器学习技术,包括随机森林(RF)、XGBoost (XGB)、支持向量机(SVM)和多层感知器(MLP),来预测IA破裂状态。方法:数据集包括178例IAs,每个IAs有53个临床和影像学特征进行分析。我们删除了相对于目标变量具有高相关性(>0.8)的特征,以减少冗余。我们应用网格搜索对每个模型的超参数进行微调。每个模型通过5次交叉验证的5次迭代进行评估。提取了总体性能指标(准确性、精密度、召回率和f1分数)。采用Wilcoxon符号秩检验比较模型之间的曲线下面积(AUC)得分。结果:以颈内动脉(42例)、大脑前交通动脉(41例)、大脑中动脉(32例)、大脑后交通动脉(25例)最为常见。RF(0.85)和XGB(0.76)模型的AUC显著高于SVM(0.69)和MLP(0.65)模型(P < 0.05)。RF模型与XBG模型的准确率无统计学差异(P = 0.144)。分形维数在所有模型中被列为模型性能最重要的特征。在驱动模型性能的15个最重要特征中,三维(3D)形状特征占了8个。结论:RF模型在精密度和召回率平衡的情况下,准确率最高(85%)。在所有模型中,3D几何特征驱动了模型的性能,突出了这些特征在预测破裂状态方面的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信