z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Tissue outcome prediction in hyperacute ischemic stroke: Comparison of machine learning models
Author(s) -
Joseph Benzakoun,
Sylvain Charron,
Guillaume Turc,
Wagih Ben Hassen,
Laurence Legrand,
Grégoire Boulouis,
Olivier Naggara,
JeanClaude Baron,
Bertrand Thirion,
Catherine Oppenheim
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.167
H-Index - 193
eISSN - 1559-7016
pISSN - 0271-678X
DOI - 10.1177/0271678x211024371
Subject(s) - outcome (game theory) , stroke (engine) , ischemic stroke , medicine , cardiology , computer science , artificial intelligence , physical medicine and rehabilitation , ischemia , engineering , mathematics , mechanical engineering , mathematical economics
Machine Learning (ML) has been proposed for tissue fate prediction after acute ischemic stroke (AIS), with the aim to help treatment decision and patient management. We compared three different ML models to the clinical method based on diffusion-perfusion thresholding for the voxel-based prediction of final infarct, using a large MRI dataset obtained in a cohort of AIS patients prior to recanalization treatment. Baseline MRI (MRI 0 ), including diffusion-weighted sequence (DWI) and Tmax maps from perfusion-weighted sequence, and 24-hr follow-up MRI (MRI 24h ) were retrospectively collected in consecutive 394 patients AIS patients (median age = 70 years; final infarct volume = 28mL). Manually segmented DWI 24h lesion was considered the final infarct. Gradient Boosting, Random Forests and U-Net were trained using DWI, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and Tmax maps on MRI 0 as inputs to predict final infarct. Tissue outcome predictions were compared to final infarct using Dice score. Gradient Boosting had significantly better predictive performance (median [IQR] Dice Score as for median age, maybe you can replace the comma with an equal sign for consistency 0.53 [0.29-0.68]) than U-Net (0.48 [0.18-0.68]), Random Forests (0.51 [0.27-0.66]), and clinical thresholding method (0.45 [0.25-0.62]) ( P  < 0.001). In this benchmark of ML models for tissue outcome prediction in AIS, Gradient Boosting outperformed other ML models and clinical thresholding method and is thus promising for future decision-making.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom