使用用户独立机器学习算法与Tmax阈值图预测组织损伤

A. Hakim, Benjamin Messerli, Raphael Meier, T. Dobrocky, Sebastian Bellwald, Simon Jung, Richard McKinley, R. Wiest
{"title":"使用用户独立机器学习算法与Tmax阈值图预测组织损伤","authors":"A. Hakim, Benjamin Messerli, Raphael Meier, T. Dobrocky, Sebastian Bellwald, Simon Jung, Richard McKinley, R. Wiest","doi":"10.3390/ctn5030021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"(1) Background: To test the accuracy of a fully automated stroke tissue estimation algorithm (FASTER) to predict final lesion volumes in an independent dataset in patients with acute stroke; (2) Methods: Tissue-at-risk prediction was performed in 31 stroke patients presenting with a proximal middle cerebral artery occlusion. FDA-cleared perfusion software using the AHA recommendation for the Tmax threshold delay was tested against a prediction algorithm trained on an independent perfusion software using artificial intelligence (FASTER). Following our endovascular strategy to consequently achieve TICI 3 outcome, we compared patients with complete reperfusion (TICI 3) vs. no reperfusion (TICI 0) after mechanical thrombectomy. Final infarct volume was determined on a routine follow-up MRI or CT at 90 days after the stroke; (3) Results: Compared to the reference standard (infarct volume after 90 days), the decision forest algorithm overestimated the final infarct volume in patients without reperfusion. Underestimation was observed if patients were completely reperfused. In cases where the FDA-cleared segmentation was not interpretable due to improper definitions of the arterial input function, the decision forest provided reliable results; (4) Conclusions: The prediction accuracy of automated tissue estimation depends on (i) success of reperfusion, (ii) infarct size, and (iii) software-related factors introduced by the training sample. A principal advantage of machine learning algorithms is their improved robustness to artifacts in comparison to solely threshold-based model-dependent software. Validation on independent datasets remains a crucial condition for clinical implementations of decision support systems in stroke imaging.","PeriodicalId":242430,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Translational Neuroscience","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prediction of Tissue Damage Using a User-Independent Machine Learning Algorithm vs. Tmax Threshold Maps\",\"authors\":\"A. Hakim, Benjamin Messerli, Raphael Meier, T. Dobrocky, Sebastian Bellwald, Simon Jung, Richard McKinley, R. Wiest\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/ctn5030021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"(1) Background: To test the accuracy of a fully automated stroke tissue estimation algorithm (FASTER) to predict final lesion volumes in an independent dataset in patients with acute stroke; (2) Methods: Tissue-at-risk prediction was performed in 31 stroke patients presenting with a proximal middle cerebral artery occlusion. FDA-cleared perfusion software using the AHA recommendation for the Tmax threshold delay was tested against a prediction algorithm trained on an independent perfusion software using artificial intelligence (FASTER). Following our endovascular strategy to consequently achieve TICI 3 outcome, we compared patients with complete reperfusion (TICI 3) vs. no reperfusion (TICI 0) after mechanical thrombectomy. Final infarct volume was determined on a routine follow-up MRI or CT at 90 days after the stroke; (3) Results: Compared to the reference standard (infarct volume after 90 days), the decision forest algorithm overestimated the final infarct volume in patients without reperfusion. Underestimation was observed if patients were completely reperfused. In cases where the FDA-cleared segmentation was not interpretable due to improper definitions of the arterial input function, the decision forest provided reliable results; (4) Conclusions: The prediction accuracy of automated tissue estimation depends on (i) success of reperfusion, (ii) infarct size, and (iii) software-related factors introduced by the training sample. A principal advantage of machine learning algorithms is their improved robustness to artifacts in comparison to solely threshold-based model-dependent software. Validation on independent datasets remains a crucial condition for clinical implementations of decision support systems in stroke imaging.\",\"PeriodicalId\":242430,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical and Translational Neuroscience\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical and Translational Neuroscience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/ctn5030021\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Translational Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/ctn5030021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

(1)背景:测试全自动卒中组织估计算法(FASTER)在独立数据集中预测急性卒中患者最终病变体积的准确性;(2)方法:对31例大脑中近端动脉闭塞的脑卒中患者进行组织危险预测。使用AHA推荐的Tmax阈值延迟的fda批准灌注软件与使用人工智能(FASTER)的独立灌注软件训练的预测算法进行了测试。根据我们的血管内策略,最终达到TICI 3的结果,我们比较了机械取栓后完全再灌注(TICI 3)和无再灌注(TICI 0)患者。卒中后90天通过常规随访MRI或CT确定最终梗死体积;(3)结果:与参考标准(90天后梗死体积)相比,决策森林算法高估了无再灌注患者的最终梗死体积。如果患者完全再灌注,则观察到低估。在fda批准的分割由于动脉输入函数定义不当而无法解释的情况下,决策森林提供了可靠的结果;(4)结论:自动组织估计的预测精度取决于(i)再灌注成功,(ii)梗死面积,以及(iii)训练样本引入的软件相关因素。机器学习算法的一个主要优点是,与仅基于阈值的模型依赖软件相比,它们对工件的鲁棒性有所提高。对独立数据集的验证仍然是脑卒中成像决策支持系统临床实施的关键条件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Prediction of Tissue Damage Using a User-Independent Machine Learning Algorithm vs. Tmax Threshold Maps
(1) Background: To test the accuracy of a fully automated stroke tissue estimation algorithm (FASTER) to predict final lesion volumes in an independent dataset in patients with acute stroke; (2) Methods: Tissue-at-risk prediction was performed in 31 stroke patients presenting with a proximal middle cerebral artery occlusion. FDA-cleared perfusion software using the AHA recommendation for the Tmax threshold delay was tested against a prediction algorithm trained on an independent perfusion software using artificial intelligence (FASTER). Following our endovascular strategy to consequently achieve TICI 3 outcome, we compared patients with complete reperfusion (TICI 3) vs. no reperfusion (TICI 0) after mechanical thrombectomy. Final infarct volume was determined on a routine follow-up MRI or CT at 90 days after the stroke; (3) Results: Compared to the reference standard (infarct volume after 90 days), the decision forest algorithm overestimated the final infarct volume in patients without reperfusion. Underestimation was observed if patients were completely reperfused. In cases where the FDA-cleared segmentation was not interpretable due to improper definitions of the arterial input function, the decision forest provided reliable results; (4) Conclusions: The prediction accuracy of automated tissue estimation depends on (i) success of reperfusion, (ii) infarct size, and (iii) software-related factors introduced by the training sample. A principal advantage of machine learning algorithms is their improved robustness to artifacts in comparison to solely threshold-based model-dependent software. Validation on independent datasets remains a crucial condition for clinical implementations of decision support systems in stroke imaging.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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