Outcome Prediction Based on Automatically Extracted Infarct Core Image Features in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".