Comparison of classification methods for tissue outcome after ischemic stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In acute ischemic stroke, identifying brain tissue at high risk of infarction is important for clinical decision-making. This tissue may be identified with suitable classification methods from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data. The aim of the present study was to assess comparatively the performance of five popular classification methods (Adaptive Boosting (ADA), Logistic Regression (LR), Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), Random Forest (RF), and Support Vector Machine (SVM)) in identifying tissue at high risk of infarction on human voxel-based brain imaging data. The classification methods were used with eight MRI parameters including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and perfusion-weighted imaging (PWI) obtained in 55 patients. Sensitivity, specificity, the area under the receiver operating curve (ROC) as well as the area under the precision-recall curve criteria were used to compare the method performances. The methods performed equally in terms of sensitivity and specificity while the results of the area under the ROC were significantly better for ADA, LR, ANN and RF. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the performances of these five classification methods regarding the area under the precision-recall curve, which was the main comparison metric.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".