| Literature DB >> 28086802 |
Elena Jiménez-Xarrié1, Myriam Davila2,3, Ana Paula Candiota2,3,4, Raquel Delgado-Mederos1, Sandra Ortega-Martorell3,5, Margarida Julià-Sapé2,3,4, Carles Arús6,7,8, Joan Martí-Fàbregas1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) provides non-invasive information about the metabolic pattern of the brain parenchyma in vivo. The SpectraClassifier software performs MRS pattern-recognition by determining the spectral features (metabolites) which can be used objectively to classify spectra. Our aim was to develop an Infarct Evolution Classifier and a Brain Regions Classifier in a rat model of focal ischemic stroke using SpectraClassifier.Entities:
Keywords: Animal model; Magnetic resonance spectroscopy; Metabolomics; Pattern recognition; Stroke
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28086802 PMCID: PMC5237280 DOI: 10.1186/s12868-016-0328-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Neurosci ISSN: 1471-2202 Impact factor: 3.288
Fig. 1Results from the Infarct Evolution Classifier. a Analysis of the Balanced Error Rate (BER) of the independent test set, the correctly classified cases (CCC) and the plot of the three ROC curves of the training set. The best performance was achieved using three features (red arrow). b Image of the voxel position and the mean spectrum ± SD (in gray shading) of the training set for each class with the approximate position of the features selected by the SFFS method indicated by red arrows (see also Table 1). c 2D Fisher’s LDA latent space representing the classification in the training set and the independent test set using three features
Fig. 2Results from the Brain Regions Classifier. a Analysis of the Balanced Error Rate (BER) of the independent test set and the correctly classified cases (CCC) and the plot of the three ROC curves of the training set. The best performance was achieved using three features (red arrow). b Image of the voxel position and the mean spectrum ± SD (in gray shading) of the training group for each class with the position of the features selected by the SFFS method indicated approximately by red arrows (see also Table 3). c 2D Fisher’s LDA latent space representing the classification in the training set and the independent test set using three features
Features selected for the Infarct Evolution Classifier, and the metabolites tentatively assigned to those features
| Feature selection order number | Feature chemical shift (ppm) | Assigned metabolite | Non-infarcted parenchyma* | Acute phase post-stroke* | Subacute phase post-stroke* | p value† |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.33 | Lac + ML(–CH2) | 2.78 (2.38–3.21) | 7.39 (6.67–8.90) | 19.88 (10.38–22.11) | p < 0.01 |
| 2 | 3.05 | TCr | 3.83 (3.42–4.18) | 1.96 (1.63–2.36) | 2.01 (1.62–2.31) | p < 0.01 |
| 3 | 0.85 | ML(–CH3) | 3.32 (3.09–3.95) | 3.02 (2.33–4.27) | 12.30 (8.39–15.52) | p < 0.01 |
* Median (interquartile range) of UL2CA normalized peak height values for each feature in the training set
†p value resulting from the Kruskall–Wallis test of the comparison of the selected feature among the three classes of the training set
Features selected for the Brain Regions Classifier and the metabolites tentatively assigned to those features
| Feature selection order number | Feature chemical shift (ppm) | Assigned metabolite | Non-infarcted parenchyma* | SVZ* | Infarcted parenchyma* | p value† |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3.05 | TCr | 5.80 (5.31–6.04) | 5.74 (5.26–6.44) | 2.43 (2.01–3.32) | p < 0.01 |
| 2 | 3.62 | Myo | 2.73 (2.31–2.93) | 3.45 (3.15–3.91) | 1.61 (1.41–2.01) | p < 0.01 |
| 3 | 3.04 | TCr | 6.92 (6.47–7.37) | 6.91 (6.38–7.70) | 2.84 (1.95–3.80) | p < 0.01 |
* Median (interquartile range) for the UL2CA normalized peak height values for each selected spectral feature using the SFFS method in the training set
†p value resulting from the non-parametric Kruskall–Wallis test of the comparison of the selected spectral feature among the three classes of the training set
Infarct Evolution Classifier predictive accuracy analysis in the training set
| Training set | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | AUC value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-infarcted parenchyma | 100% (32/32) | 100% (22/22) | 100% (32/32) | 100% (22/22) | 1.00 ± 0.00 |
| Acute phase of infarct | 100% (13/13) | 95% (39/41) | 87% (13/15) | 100% (39/39) | 0.98 ± 0.00 |
| Subacute phase of infarct | 78% (7/9) | 100% (45/45) | 100% (7/7) | 96% (45/47) | 0.98 ± 0.04 |
Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and the mean ± standard error area under curve (AUC) value of the receiver operating curve (ROC) of the dichotomization of each class compared to the other two classes combined. Results are given in percentage with the number of spectra within parentheses. Total number of spectra in the training set (n = 54) corresponded to non-infarcted parenchyma (n = 32), acute phase of infarct (n = 13) and subacute phase of infarct (n = 9).
Brain Regions Classifier predictive accuracy analysis in the training set
| Training set | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-infarcted parenchyma | 84% (27/32) | 84% (64/76) | 69% (27/39) | 93% (64/69) | 0.90 ± 0.06 |
| SVZ | 76% (41/54) | 93% (50/54) | 91% (41/45) | 79% (50/63) | 0.92 ± 0.04 |
| Infarcted parenchyma | 100% (22/22) | 98% (84/86) | 92% (22/24) | 100% (84/84) | 1.00 ± 0.00 |
Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and the mean ± standard error area under curve (AUC) value of the receiver operating curve (ROC) of the dichotomization of each class compared to the other two classes combined. Results are given in percentage with the number of spectra within parentheses. Total number of spectra in the training set (n = 108) corresponded to non-infarcted parenchyma (n = 32), SVZ (n = 54) and infarcted parenchyma (n = 22).