MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4287010128 · doi:10.3390/diagnostics12081786

Outcome Prediction Based on Automatically Extracted Infarct Core Image Features in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke

2022· article· en· W4287010128 on OpenAlexaff
Manon L. Tolhuisen, Jan W. Hoving, Miou S. Koopman, Manon Kappelhof, Henk van Voorst, Agnetha A.E. Bruggeman, Adam M. Demchuck, Diederik W.J. Dippel, Bart J. Emmer, Serge Bracard, Françis Guillemin, Robert J. van Oostenbrugge, Peter Mitchell, Wim H. van Zwam, Michael D. Hill, Yvo B.W.E.M. Roos, Tudor G. Jovin, Olvert A. Berkhemer, Bruce Campbell, Jeffrey L. Saver, Phil White, Keith W. Muir, Mayank Goyal, Henk A. Marquering, Charles B.L.M. Majoie, Matthan W.A. Caan

Bibliographic record

VenueDiagnostics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Artificial intelligenceFeature (linguistics)CohortRadiologyInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Infarct volume (FIV) on follow-up diffusion-weighted imaging (FU-DWI) is only moderately associated with functional outcome in acute ischemic stroke patients. However, FU-DWI may contain other imaging biomarkers that could aid in improving outcome prediction models for acute ischemic stroke. We included FU-DWI data from the HERMES, ISLES, and MR CLEAN-NO IV databases. Lesions were segmented using a deep learning model trained on the HERMES and ISLES datasets. We assessed the performance of three classifiers in predicting functional independence for the MR CLEAN-NO IV trial cohort based on: (1) FIV alone, (2) the most important features obtained from a trained convolutional autoencoder (CAE), and (3) radiomics. Furthermore, we investigated feature importance in the radiomic-feature-based model. For outcome prediction, we included 206 patients: 144 scans were included in the training set, 21 in the validation set, and 41 in the test set. The classifiers that included the CAE and the radiomic features showed AUC values of 0.88 and 0.81, respectively, while the model based on FIV had an AUC of 0.79. This difference was not found to be statistically significant. Feature importance results showed that lesion intensity heterogeneity received more weight than lesion volume in outcome prediction. This study suggests that predictions of functional outcome should not be based on FIV alone and that FU-DWI images capture additional prognostic information.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.869

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations19
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiagnosticsSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207