Clinical Features, Non-Contrast CT Radiomic and Radiological Signs in Models for the Prediction of Hematoma Expansion in Intracerebral Hemorrhage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Rapid identification of hematoma expansion (HE) risk at baseline is a priority in intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) patients and may impact clinical decision making. Predictive scores using clinical features and Non-Contract Computed Tomography (NCCT)-based features exist, however, the extent to which each feature set contributes to identification is limited. This paper aims to investigate the relative value of clinical, radiological, and radiomics features in HE prediction. METHODS: Original data was retrospectively obtained from three major prospective clinical trials ["Spot Sign" Selection of Intracerebral Hemorrhage to Guide Hemostatic Therapy (SPOTLIGHT)NCT01359202; The Spot Sign for Predicting and Treating ICH Growth Study (STOP-IT)NCT00810888] Patients baseline and follow-up scans following ICH were included. Clinical, NCCT radiological, and radiomics features were extracted, and multivariate modeling was conducted on each feature set. RESULTS: 317 patients from 38 sites met inclusion criteria. Warfarin use (p=0.001) and GCS score (p=0.046) were significant clinical predictors of HE. The best performing model for HE prediction included clinical, radiological, and radiomic features with an area under the curve (AUC) of 87.7%. NCCT radiological features improved upon clinical benchmark model AUC by 6.5% and a clinical & radiomic combination model by 6.4%. Addition of radiomics features improved goodness of fit of both clinical (p=0.012) and clinical & NCCT radiological (p=0.007) models, with marginal improvements on AUC. Inclusion of NCCT radiological signs was best for ruling out HE whereas the radiomic features were best for ruling in HE. CONCLUSION: NCCT-based radiological and radiomics features can improve HE prediction when added to clinical features.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".