Application of machine learning models in predicting prognosis after mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke with large vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective Based on real⁃world clinical data, the predictive efficacy of the unweighted machine learning (ML) models for the prognosis of acute ischemic stroke with large vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation (AIS⁃aLVO) patients after mechanical thrombectomy was evaluated. The optimal model was selected, and the impact of class⁃weighted strategies on the predictive efficacy of this model was assessed. Methods A total of 191 patients with AIS⁃aLVO who underwent mechanical thrombectomy from May 2023 to September 2024 in Tianjin Huanhu Hospital were included. Collect their clinical data, such as pre⁃admission National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, etc. Retrospectively analyze the brain non⁃contrast CT (NCCT), multi⁃phase CT angiography (mCTA) and CT perfusion (CTP) examinations of the patients upon admission. The mCTA was used to assess the collateral circulation status; the Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) was used to evaluate the early ischemic changes in the middle cerebral artery (MCA) supply area based on the NCCT; the CTP was used to assess the cerebral perfusion status, and the Mismatch volume, Tmax > 4 s volume, Tmax > 6 s volume, Tmax > 8 s volume and Tmax > 10 s volume were obtained. The 90⁃day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score after surgery was used as the prognostic evaluation index, and the score > 2 was determined as poor prognosis. The Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression was used for feature selection. Logistic regression (LR), random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM), decision tree (DT), k⁃nearest neighbor (KNN), and eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) algorithms were used to construct unweighted models. The predictive efficacy of the models was evaluated using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, area under the curve (AUC), calibration curve (Brier score), and decision curve analysis (DCA). The optimal model was selected, and the Shapley additive explanation (SHAP) method was used to analyze the feature importance of this model. At the same time, the impact of the class⁃weighted strategy on the predictive performance of the model was evaluated. Results The optimal regularization parameter (λ = 0.064) of LASSO regression was determined by the ten⁃fold cross⁃validation minimum deviation criterion. Four feature variables were selected: ASPECTS score, Tmax > 10 s volume, pre⁃admission NIHSS score, and poor collateral circulation status. Stratified sampling was used to randomly allocate the subjects to the training set (n = 133) and the test set (n = 58), and unweighted models was established. In the unweighted model, except for the overfitting RF and XGBoost models, the Delong test showed that the pairwise comparison of the AUC values of the remaining models had no statistical significance (P > 0.05, for all); however, the unweighted SVM model had the lowest Brier score (0.16), and its calibration ability was the strongest. Within the 15%-30% threshold range, the DCA curve of the unweighted SVM model was the highest, suggesting the highest clinical applicability. There was no statistically significant difference in the AUC values, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value and negative predictive value between the class⁃weighted and unweighted SVM models (P > 0.05, for all); however, compared with the unweighted SVM model, the Brier score of the class⁃weighted SVM model was higher (0.17 vs. 0.16), and its calibration ability was weakened. Conclusions In a real⁃world cohort of AIS⁃aLVO cohort, the unweighted SVM model can accurately predict poor functional outcomes after mechanical thrombectomy without relying on class⁃weighted, and this method has high clinical translational potential.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».