John Muschelli1, Natalie L Ullman2, Elizabeth M Sweeney2, Ani Eloyan2, Neil Martin2, Paul Vespa2, Daniel F Hanley2, Ciprian M Crainiceanu2. 1. From the Department of Biostatistics, Bloomberg School of Public Health (J.M., E.M.S., A.E., C.M.C.) and Department of Neurology, Division of Brain Injury Outcomes (N.L.U., D.F.H.), Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD; and Department of Neurosurgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA (N.M., P.V.). jmusche1@jhu.edu. 2. From the Department of Biostatistics, Bloomberg School of Public Health (J.M., E.M.S., A.E., C.M.C.) and Department of Neurology, Division of Brain Injury Outcomes (N.L.U., D.F.H.), Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD; and Department of Neurosurgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA (N.M., P.V.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The location of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is currently described in a qualitative way; we provide a quantitative framework for estimating ICH engagement and its relevance to stroke outcomes. METHODS: We analyzed 111 patients with ICH from the Minimally Invasive Surgery Plus Recombinant-Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Intracerebral Evacuation (MISTIE) II clinical trial. We estimated ICH engagement at a population level using image registration of computed tomographic scans to a template and a previously labeled atlas. Predictive regions of National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and Glasgow Coma Scale stroke severity scores, collected at enrollment, were estimated. RESULTS: The percent coverage of the ICH by these regions strongly outperformed the reader-labeled locations. The adjusted R(2) almost doubled from 0.129 (reader-labeled model) to 0.254 (quantitative location model) for National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and more than tripled from 0.069 (reader-labeled model) to 0.214 (quantitative location model). A permutation test confirmed that the new predictive regions are more predictive than chance: P<0.001 for National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and P<0.01 for Glasgow Coma Scale. CONCLUSIONS: Objective measures of ICH location and engagement using advanced computed tomographic imaging processing provide finer, objective, and more quantitative anatomic information than that provided by human readers. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00224770.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The location of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is currently described in a qualitative way; we provide a quantitative framework for estimating ICH engagement and its relevance to stroke outcomes. METHODS: We analyzed 111 patients with ICH from the Minimally Invasive Surgery Plus Recombinant-Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Intracerebral Evacuation (MISTIE) II clinical trial. We estimated ICH engagement at a population level using image registration of computed tomographic scans to a template and a previously labeled atlas. Predictive regions of National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and Glasgow Coma Scale stroke severity scores, collected at enrollment, were estimated. RESULTS: The percent coverage of the ICH by these regions strongly outperformed the reader-labeled locations. The adjusted R(2) almost doubled from 0.129 (reader-labeled model) to 0.254 (quantitative location model) for National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and more than tripled from 0.069 (reader-labeled model) to 0.214 (quantitative location model). A permutation test confirmed that the new predictive regions are more predictive than chance: P<0.001 for National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and P<0.01 for Glasgow Coma Scale. CONCLUSIONS: Objective measures of ICH location and engagement using advanced computed tomographic imaging processing provide finer, objective, and more quantitative anatomic information than that provided by human readers. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00224770.
Authors: Kenichi Oishi; Karl Zilles; Katrin Amunts; Andreia Faria; Hangyi Jiang; Xin Li; Kazi Akhter; Kegang Hua; Roger Woods; Arthur W Toga; G Bruce Pike; Pedro Rosa-Neto; Alan Evans; Jiangyang Zhang; Hao Huang; Michael I Miller; Peter C M van Zijl; John Mazziotta; Susumu Mori Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2008-07-18 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Judith D Schaechter; Zachary P Fricker; Katherine L Perdue; Karl G Helmer; Mark G Vangel; Douglas N Greve; Nikos Makris Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Craig S Anderson; Yining Huang; Ji Guang Wang; Hisatomi Arima; Bruce Neal; Bin Peng; Emma Heeley; Christian Skulina; Mark W Parsons; Jong Sung Kim; Qing Ling Tao; Yue Chun Li; Jian Dong Jiang; Li Wen Tai; Jin Li Zhang; En Xu; Yan Cheng; Stephane Heritier; Lewis B Morgenstern; John Chalmers Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2008-04-07 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: A David Mendelow; Barbara A Gregson; Elise N Rowan; Gordon D Murray; Anil Gholkar; Patrick M Mitchell Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-05-29 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Chitra Venkatasubramanian; Jonathan T Kleinman; Nancy J Fischbein; Jean-Marc Olivot; Alisa D Gean; Irina Eyngorn; Ryan W Snider; Michael Mlynash; Christine A C Wijman Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2013-08-02 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Anirudh Sreekrishnan; Jennifer L Dearborn; David M Greer; Fu-Dong Shi; David Y Hwang; Audrey C Leasure; Sonya E Zhou; Emily J Gilmore; Charles C Matouk; Nils H Petersen; Lauren H Sansing; Kevin N Sheth Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: John Muschelli; Elizabeth M Sweeney; Natalie L Ullman; Paul Vespa; Daniel F Hanley; Ciprian M Crainiceanu Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Matthew F Sharrock; W Andrew Mould; Hasan Ali; Meghan Hildreth; Issam A Awad; Daniel F Hanley; John Muschelli Journal: Neuroinformatics Date: 2020-09-27