MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362703920 · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2023.104357

Deep learning prediction of motor performance in stroke individuals using neuroimaging data

2023· article· en· W4362703920 on OpenAlexafffund
Rukiye Karakış, Kali Gürkahraman, Georgios D. Mitsis, Marie‐Hélène Boudrias

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Informatics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreCentre Intégré de Santé et de Services Sociaux des LaurentidesJewish Rehabilitation HospitalMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéUniversité de GenèveUniversity of British ColumbiaTürkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma KurumuUCL Institute of Neurology, University College LondonCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceFractional anisotropySupport vector machineDiffusion MRIConvolutional neural networkNeuroimagingComputer scienceMachine learningNaive Bayes classifierPattern recognition (psychology)Cross-validationPopulationMagnetic resonance imagingMedicinePsychologyNeuroscienceRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The degree of motor impairment and profile of recovery after stroke are difficult to predict for each individual. Measures obtained from clinical assessments, as well as neurophysiological and neuroimaging techniques have been used as potential biomarkers of motor recovery, with limited accuracy up to date. To address this, the present study aimed to develop a deep learning model based on structural brain images obtained from stroke participants and healthy volunteers. The following inputs were used in a multi-channel 3D convolutional neural network (CNN) model: fractional anisotropy, mean diffusivity, radial diffusivity, and axial diffusivity maps obtained from Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) images, white and gray matter intensity values obtained from Magnetic Resonance Imaging, as well as demographic data (e.g., age, gender). Upper limb motor function was classified into "Poor" and "Good" categories. To assess the performance of the DL model, we compared it to more standard machine learning (ML) classifiers including k-nearest neighbor, support vector machines (SVM), Decision Trees, Random Forests, Ada Boosting, and Naïve Bayes, whereby the inputs of these classifiers were the features taken from the fully connected layer of the CNN model. The highest accuracy and area under the curve values were 0.92 and 0.92 for the 3D-CNN and 0.91 and 0.91 for the SVM, respectively. The multi-channel 3D-CNN with residual blocks and SVM supported by DL was more accurate than traditional ML methods to classify upper limb motor impairment in the stroke population. These results suggest that combining volumetric DTI maps and measures of white and gray matter integrity can improve the prediction of the degree of motor impairment after stroke. Identifying the potential of recovery early on after a stroke could promote the allocation of resources to optimize the functional independence of these individuals and their quality of life.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations26
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical InformaticsSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207