MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3015395730 · doi:10.1161/str.51.suppl_1.141

Abstract 141: Artificial Intelligence to Improve the Detection and Triage of Cerebral Aneurysms

2020· article· en· W3015395730 on OpenAlexaff
Vítor Mendes Pereira, Yoni Donner, Gil Levi, Nicole M Cancelliere, E Wasserman, Catarina Perry da Câmara, Karla Mirella Silva Lobato Mendes, Patrick Nicholson, David E. Golan, Timo Krings, Raul G. Nogueira

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and Complications
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTriageArtificial intelligenceConvolutional neural networkLeverage (statistics)Receiver operating characteristicArtificial neural networkPattern recognition (psychology)RadiologyComputer scienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cerebral Aneurysms (CAs) may occur in 5-10% of the population. They can be often missed because they require a very methodological diagnostic approach. We developed an algorithm using artificial intelligence to assist and supervise and detect CAs. Methods: We developed an automated algorithm to detect CAs. The algorithm is based on 3D convolutional neural network modeled as a U-net. We included all saccular CAs from 2014 to 2016 from a single center. Normal and pathological datasets were prepared and annotated in 3D using an in-house developed platform. To assess the accuracy and to optimize the model, we assessed preliminary results using a validation dataset. After the algorithm was trained, a dataset was used to evaluate final IA detection and aneurysm measurements. The accuracy of the algorithm was derived using ROC curves and Pearson correlation tests. Results: We used 528 CTAs with 674 aneurysms at the following locations: ACA (3%), ACA/ACOM (26.1%), ICA/MCA (26.3%), MCA (29.4%), PCA/PCOM (2.3%), Basilar (6.6%), Vertebral (2.3%) and other (3.7%). Training datasets consisted of 189 CA scans. We plotted ROC curves and achieved an AUC of 0.85 for unruptured and 0.88 for ruptured CAs. We improved the model performance by increasing the training dataset employing various methods of data augmentation to leverage the data to its fullest. The final model tested was performed in 528 CTAs using 5-fold cross-validation and an additional set of 2400 normal CTAs. There was a significant improvement compared to the initial assessment, with an AUC of 0.93 for unruptured and 0.94 for ruptured. The algorithm detected larger aneurysms more accurately, reaching an AUC of 0.97 and a 91.5% specificity at 90% sensitivity for aneurysms larger than 7mm. Also, the algorithm accurately detected CAs in the following locations: basilar(AUC of 0.97) and MCA/ACOM (AUC of 0.94). The volume measurement (mm3) by the model compared to the annotated one achieved a Pearson correlation of 99.36. Conclusion: The Viz.ai aneurysm algorithm was able to detect and measure ruptured and unruptured CAs in consecutive CTAs. The model has demonstrated that a deep learning AI algorithm can achieve clinically useful levels of accuracy for clinical decision support.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke→Same topicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and Complications→French-language works237,207→