Automated prediction of final infarct volume in patients with large-vessel occlusion acute ischemic stroke
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: In patients with large-vessel occlusion (LVO) acute ischemic stroke (AIS), determinations of infarct size play a key role in the identification of candidates for endovascular stroke therapy (EVT). An accurate, automated method to quantify infarct at the time of presentation using widely available imaging modalities would improve screening for EVT. Here, the authors aimed to compare the performance of three measures of infarct core at presentation, including an automated method using machine learning. METHODS: Patients with LVO AIS who underwent successful EVT at four comprehensive stroke centers were identified. Patients were included if they underwent concurrent noncontrast head CT (NCHCT), CT angiography (CTA), and CT perfusion (CTP) with Rapid imaging at the time of presentation, and MRI 24 to 48 hours after reperfusion. NCHCT scans were analyzed using the Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) graded by neuroradiology or neurology expert readers. CTA source images were analyzed using a previously described machine learning model named DeepSymNet (DSN). Final infarct volume (FIV) was determined from diffusion-weighted MRI sequences using manual segmentation. The primary outcome was the performance of the three infarct core measurements (NCHCT-ASPECTS, CTA with DSN, and CTP-Rapid) to predict FIV, which was measured using area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) analysis. RESULTS: Among 76 patients with LVO AIS who underwent EVT and met inclusion criteria, the median age was 67 years (IQR 54-76 years), 45% were female, and 37% were White. The median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 16 (IQR 12-22), and the median NCHCT-ASPECTS on presentation was 8 (IQR 7-8). The median time between when the patient was last known to be well and arrival was 156 minutes (IQR 73-303 minutes), and between NCHCT/CTA/CTP to groin puncture was 73 minutes (IQR 54-81 minutes). The AUC was obtained at three different cutoff points: 10 ml, 30 ml, and 50 ml FIV. At the 50-ml FIV cutoff, the AUC of ASPECTS was 0.74; of CTP core volume, 0.72; and of DSN, 0.82. Differences in AUCs for the three predictors were not significant for the three FIV cutoffs. CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of patients with LVO AIS in whom reperfusion was achieved, determinations of infarct core at presentation by NCHCT-ASPECTS and a machine learning model analyzing CTA source images were equivalent to CTP in predicting FIV. These findings have suggested that the information to accurately predict infarct core in patients with LVO AIS was present in conventional imaging modalities (NCHCT and CTA) and accessible by machine learning methods.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».