Automatic assessment of DWI‐ASPECTS for acute ischemic stroke based on deep learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (ASPECTS) is a standardized semi-quantitative method for early ischemic changes in acute ischemic stroke. PURPOSE: However, ASPECTS is still affected by expert experience and inconsistent results between readers in clinical. This study aims to propose an automatic ASPECTS scoring model based on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) mode to help clinicians make accurate treatment plans. METHODS: Eighty-two patients with stroke were included in the study. First, we designed a new deep learning network for segmenting ASPECTS scoring brain regions. The network is improved based on U-net, which integrates multiple modules. Second, we proposed using hybrid classifiers to classify brain regions. For brain regions with larger areas, we used brain grayscale comparison algorithm to train machine learning classifiers, while using hybrid feature training for brain regions with smaller areas. RESULTS: The average DICE coefficient of the segmented hindbrain area can reach 0.864. With the proposed hybrid classifier, our method performs significantly on both region-level ASPECTS and dichotomous ASPECTS. The sensitivity and accuracy on the test set are 95.51% and 93.43%, respectively. For dichotomous ASPECTS, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between our automated ASPECTS score and the expert reading was 0.87. CONCLUSIONS: This study proposed an automated model for ASPECTS scoring of patients with acute ischemic stroke based on DWI images. Experimental results show that the method of segmentation first and then classification is feasible. Our method has the potential to assist physicians in the Alberta Stroke Program with early CT scoring and clinical stroke diagnosis.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".