| Literature DB >> 26635717 |
Jana Katharina Wrosch1, Bastian Volbers2, Philipp Gölitz3, Daniel Frederic Gilbert4, Stefan Schwab5, Arnd Dörfler3, Johannes Kornhuber1, Teja Wolfgang Groemer6.
Abstract
This study was conducted to assess the feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of brain artery territory recognition based on geoprojected two-dimensional maps of diffusion MRI data in stroke patients. In this retrospective study, multiplanar diffusion MRI data of ischemic stroke patients was used to create a two-dimensional map of the entire brain. To guarantee correct representation of the stroke, a computer-aided brain artery territory diagnosis was developed and tested for its diagnostic accuracy. The test recognized the stroke-affected brain artery territory based on the position of the stroke in the map. The performance of the test was evaluated by comparing it to the reference standard of each patient's diagnosed stroke territory on record. This study was designed and conducted according to Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD). The statistical analysis included diagnostic accuracy parameters, cross-validation, and Youden Index optimization. After cross-validation on a cohort of 91 patients, the sensitivity of this territory diagnosis was 81% with a specificity of 87%. With this, the projection of strokes onto a two-dimensional map is accurate for representing the affected stroke territory and can be used to provide a static and printable overview of the diffusion MRI data. The projected map is compatible with other two-dimensional data such as EEG and will serve as a useful visualization tool.Entities:
Keywords: computer-aided detection and diagnosis; diffusion-weighted imaging; dimensionality reduction; magnetic resonance imaging; stroke territories; validation; visualization
Year: 2015 PMID: 26635717 PMCID: PMC4652171 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2015.00239
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurol ISSN: 1664-2295 Impact factor: 4.003
Figure 1Histogram of diffusion MRI values of one exemplary dataset. The intense peak at the diffusion level around 20 a.u. represents the background. The broad peak around 180 a.u. representing the healthy brain values is accompanied by a smaller second “peak” around 300 a.u., which is representing the stroke-affected tissue. The left vertical line shows the calculated cut-off value between the background and the brain. The right vertical line shows the cut-off value between the healthy brain and stroke-affected tissue.
Figure 2Projection of three-dimensional diffusion MRI data onto a two-dimensional map. (A) All data points are projected onto a sphere around the surface of the brain, which is illustrated by the dashed circles; (B) center of the projection sphere at the ventral surface of the lower mesencephalon between both cerebral peduncles; (C) plane transformation of the projection sphere via Mollweide geoprojection.
Figure 3Diffusion level reference. (A–C) Projections with strokes indicated for the pixels of values above the mean plus different numbers of SDs from the healthy diffusion levels; (A) projection referenced at one sigma level, which corresponds to a mean difference in the proportion of stroke per total brain in the original MRI data and in the projected maps (SPB-ratio) of 16.5% (SD: 31.9%); (B) projection referenced at two sigma levels, which corresponds to a SPB-ratio of 5.4% (SD: 8.1%); (C) projection referenced at three sigma levels, which corresponds to a SPB-ratio of 9.2% (SD: 6.9%); (D) representative layer of the diffusion MRI data of the projected brain in (A) through (C), showing the stroke-affected region.
Figure 4Stroke territory reference map. (A) Anterior cerebral artery territory; (B) superior division of the middle cerebral artery territory; (C) inferior division of the middle cerebral artery territory; (D) posterior cerebral artery territory; (E) posterior inferior cerebellar artery territory; left side of the map also shows the left side of the brain.
Cut-off values for computer-aided brain artery territory diagnosis.
| Excluded groups | How much area must be covered by stroke? | How many of the stroke pixels must be convened? | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACA (%) | supMCA (%) | infMCA (%) | PCA (%) | PICA (%) | ACA (%) | supMCA (%) | infMCA (%) | PCA (%) | PICA (%) | |
| 1 | 20 | 10 | 5 | 10 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 90 | 50 |
| 2 | 20 | 10 | 5 | 10 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 90 | 50 |
| 3 | 20 | 10 | 5 | 10 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 90 | 50 |
| 4 | 20 | 10 | 5 | 10 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 90 | 50 |
| 5 | 20 | 10 | 5 | 10 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 90 | 50 |
| 6 | 20 | 10 | 5 | 10 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 90 | 50 |
| 7 | 20 | 10 | 5 | 10 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 90 | 50 |
| 8 | 20 | 10 | 5 | 10 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 90 | 50 |
| 9 | 20 | 10 | 5 | 10 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 50 |
| 10 | 20 | 10 | 5 | 10 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 90 | 50 |
Best cut-off values were found by Youden Index maximization as shown in Figure S1 in Supplementary Material. The table gives the cut-off values for each criterion and each of the 10 rounds of leave-p-out cross-validation, where the optimization is based on all 10 subgroups of data except the named excluded group.
ACA, anterior cerebral artery territory; supMCA, superior division of the middle cerebral artery territory; infMCA, inferior division of the middle cerebral artery territory; PCA, posterior cerebral artery territory; PICA, posterior inferior cerebellar artery territory.
Demographic characteristics of the study population (.
| Characteristic | Value |
|---|---|
| Female sex – no. (%) | 47 (38) |
| Age – years | |
| Mean ± SD | 65 ± 15 |
| Range | 23–93 |
| Diagnosed stroke territory – no. (%) | |
| ACA | 24 (19) |
| MCA superior division | 48 (38) |
| MCA inferior division | 51 (41) |
| PCA | 33 (27) |
| PICA | 32 (26) |
ACA, anterior cerebral artery; MCA, middle cerebral artery; PCA, posterior cerebral artery; PICA, posterior inferior cerebellar artery.
Severity of stroke within the study population (.
| Quantitative severity (%) | NIHSS score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median | Interquartile range | Median | Interquartile range | |
| ACA | 1.5 | 1.3 | 4 | 3 |
| MCA superior division | 1.9 | 1.9 | 7 | 13 |
| MCA inferior division | 1.6 | 2.1 | 2 | 6 |
| PCA | 2.8 | 5.4 | 3.5 | 5 |
| PICA | 2.0 | 5.2 | 1.5 | 2.5 |
| Total | 2.3 | 3.7 | 4 | 9 |
The quantitative severity was calculated from the proportion of the number of diffusion MRI pixels representing stroke to the total number of “brain pixels”; NIHSS scores were taken from patient records.
ACA, anterior cerebral artery; MCA, middle cerebral artery; PCA, posterior cerebral artery; PICA, posterior inferior cerebellar artery.
Statistical analysis of stroke territory recognition based on the geoprojected, two-dimensional map compared to the clinical diagnoses.
| Outer cross-validation on 91 cases | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Validation group | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | PLR | NLR | TP | FP | TN | FN |
| 1 | 84.6% | 87.5% | 0.733 | 0.933 | 6.769 | 0.176 | 11 | 4 | 28 | 2 |
| 2 | 75.0% | 96.0% | 0.938 | 0.828 | 18.750 | 0.260 | 15 | 1 | 24 | 5 |
| 3 | 86.7% | 83.3% | 0.722 | 0.926 | 5.200 | 0.160 | 13 | 5 | 25 | 2 |
| 4 | 76.9% | 78.1% | 0.588 | 0.893 | 3.516 | 0.295 | 10 | 7 | 25 | 3 |
| 5 | 64.3% | 80.7% | 0.600 | 0.833 | 3.321 | 0.443 | 9 | 6 | 25 | 5 |
| 6 | 78.6% | 100.0% | 1.000 | 0.912 | 0.000 | 0.214 | 11 | 0 | 31 | 3 |
| 7 | 92.3% | 81.3% | 0.667 | 0.963 | 4.923 | 0.095 | 12 | 6 | 26 | 1 |
| 8 | 83.3% | 87.9% | 0.714 | 0.935 | 6.875 | 0.190 | 10 | 4 | 29 | 2 |
| 9 | 75.0% | 84.9% | 0.643 | 0.903 | 4.950 | 0.295 | 9 | 5 | 28 | 3 |
| 10 | 88.9% | 93.8% | 0.889 | 0.938 | 14.222 | 0.119 | 16 | 2 | 30 | 2 |
| Mean | 80.6% | 87.3% | 0.749 | 0.906 | 6.853 | 0.225 | ||||
| SD | 7.8% | 6.8% | 0.137 | 0.042 | 5.258 | 0.097 | ||||
| On 20 cases | 75.0% | 85.5% | 0.621 | 0.916 | 5.182 | 0.292 | 18 | 11 | 65 | 6 |
Outer cross-validation was repeated 10 times with parameters resulting from the Youden Index optimization for nine of 10 randomly chosen subgroups and test performance validation on the tenth subgroups each. In independent validation, parameters were optimized on 91 cases and validated on 20 independent cases.
PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive values; PLR, positive likelihood ratio; NLR, negative likelihood ratio; TP, true positive count; FP, false positive count; TN, true negative count; FN, false negative count; SD, standard deviation.