Localized prediction of tissue outcome in acute ischemic stroke patients using diffusion- and perfusion-weighted MRI datasets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An accurate prediction of tissue outcome in acute ischemic stroke patients is of high interest for treatment decision making. To date, various machine learning models have been proposed that combine multi-parametric imaging data for this purpose. However, most of these machine learning models were trained using voxel information extracted from the whole brain, without taking differences in susceptibility to ischemia into account that exist between brain regions. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a local tissue outcome prediction approach, which makes predictions using locally trained machine learning models and thus accounts for regional differences. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Multi-parametric MRI data from 99 acute ischemic stroke patients were used for the development and evaluation of the local tissue outcome prediction approach. Diffusion (ADC) and perfusion parameter maps (CBF, CBV, MTT, Tmax) and corresponding follow-up lesion masks for each patient were registered to the MNI brain atlas. Logistic regression (LR) and random forest (RF) models were trained employing a local approach, which makes predictions using models individually trained for each specific voxel position using the corresponding local data. A global approach, which uses a single model trained using all voxels of the brain, was used for comparison. Tissue outcome predictions resulting from the global and local RF and LR models, as well as a combined (hybrid) approach were quantitatively evaluated and compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC AUC), the Dice coefficient, and the sensitivity and specificity metrics. RESULTS: Statistical analysis revealed the highest ROC AUC and Dice values for the hybrid approach. With 0.872 (ROC AUC; LR) and 0.353 (Dice; RF), these values were significantly higher (p < 0.01) than the values of the two other approaches. In addition, the local approach achieved the highest sensitivity of 0.448 (LR). Overall, the hybrid approach was only outperformed in sensitivity (LR) by the local approach and in specificity by both other approaches. However, in these cases the effect sizes were comparatively small. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that using locally trained machine learning models can lead to better lesion outcome prediction results compared to a single global machine learning model trained using all voxel information independent of the location in the brain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".