BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Early identification of large vessel occlusions (LVO) and timely recanalization are paramount to improved clinical outcomes in acute ischemic stroke. A stroke assessment that maximizes sensitivity and specificity for LVOs is needed to identify these cases and not overburden the health system with unnecessary transfers. Machine learning techniques are being used for predictive modeling in many aspects of stroke care and may have potential in predicting LVO presence and mechanical thrombectomy (MT) candidacy. METHODS: Ischemic stroke patients treated at Loyola University Medical Center from July 2018 to June 2019 (N = 286) were included. Thirty-five clinical and demographic variables were analyzed using machine learning algorithms, including logistic regression, extreme gradient boosting, random forest (RF), and decision trees to build models predictive of LVO presence and MT candidacy by area of the curve (AUC) analysis. The best performing model was compared with prior stroke scales. RESULTS: When using all 35 variables, RF best predicted LVO presence (AUC = 0.907 ± 0.856-0.957) while logistic regression best predicted MT candidacy (AUC = 0.930 ± 0.886-0.974). When compact models were evaluated, a 10-feature RF model best predicted LVO (AUC = 0.841 ± 0.778-0.904) and an 8-feature RF model best predicted MT candidacy (AUC = 0.862 ± 0.782-0.942). The compact RF models had sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value and positive predictive value of 0.81, 0.87, 0.92, 0.72 for LVO and 0.87, 0.97, 0.97, 0.86 for MT, respectively. The 10-feature RF model was superior at predicting LVO to all previous stroke scales (AUC 0.944 vs 0.759-0.878) and the 8-feature RF model was superior at predicting MT (AUC 0.970 vs 0.746-0.834). CONCLUSION: Random forest machine learning models utilizing clinical and demographic variables predicts LVO presence and MT candidacy with a high degree of accuracy in an ischemic stroke cohort. Further validation of this strategy for triage of stroke patients requires prospective and external validation.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Early identification of large vessel occlusions (LVO) and timely recanalization are paramount to improved clinical outcomes in acute ischemic stroke. A stroke assessment that maximizes sensitivity and specificity for LVOs is needed to identify these cases and not overburden the health system with unnecessary transfers. Machine learning techniques are being used for predictive modeling in many aspects of stroke care and may have potential in predicting LVO presence and mechanical thrombectomy (MT) candidacy. METHODS: Ischemic stroke patients treated at Loyola University Medical Center from July 2018 to June 2019 (N = 286) were included. Thirty-five clinical and demographic variables were analyzed using machine learning algorithms, including logistic regression, extreme gradient boosting, random forest (RF), and decision trees to build models predictive of LVO presence and MT candidacy by area of the curve (AUC) analysis. The best performing model was compared with prior stroke scales. RESULTS: When using all 35 variables, RF best predicted LVO presence (AUC = 0.907 ± 0.856-0.957) while logistic regression best predicted MT candidacy (AUC = 0.930 ± 0.886-0.974). When compact models were evaluated, a 10-feature RF model best predicted LVO (AUC = 0.841 ± 0.778-0.904) and an 8-feature RF model best predicted MT candidacy (AUC = 0.862 ± 0.782-0.942). The compact RF models had sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value and positive predictive value of 0.81, 0.87, 0.92, 0.72 for LVO and 0.87, 0.97, 0.97, 0.86 for MT, respectively. The 10-feature RF model was superior at predicting LVO to all previous stroke scales (AUC 0.944 vs 0.759-0.878) and the 8-feature RF model was superior at predicting MT (AUC 0.970 vs 0.746-0.834). CONCLUSION: Random forest machine learning models utilizing clinical and demographic variables predicts LVO presence and MT candidacy with a high degree of accuracy in an ischemic stroke cohort. Further validation of this strategy for triage of stroke patients requires prospective and external validation.
Authors: Gregory W Albers; Michael P Marks; Stephanie Kemp; Soren Christensen; Jenny P Tsai; Santiago Ortega-Gutierrez; Ryan A McTaggart; Michel T Torbey; May Kim-Tenser; Thabele Leslie-Mazwi; Amrou Sarraj; Scott E Kasner; Sameer A Ansari; Sharon D Yeatts; Scott Hamilton; Michael Mlynash; Jeremy J Heit; Greg Zaharchuk; Sun Kim; Janice Carrozzella; Yuko Y Palesch; Andrew M Demchuk; Roland Bammer; Philip W Lavori; Joseph P Broderick; Maarten G Lansberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-01-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Oliver C Singer; Florian Dvorak; Richard du Mesnil de Rochemont; Heiner Lanfermann; Matthias Sitzer; Tobias Neumann-Haefelin Journal: Stroke Date: 2005-02-24 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Jeffrey L Saver; Mayank Goyal; Alain Bonafe; Hans-Christoph Diener; Elad I Levy; Vitor M Pereira; Gregory W Albers; Christophe Cognard; David J Cohen; Werner Hacke; Olav Jansen; Tudor G Jovin; Heinrich P Mattle; Raul G Nogueira; Adnan H Siddiqui; Dileep R Yavagal; Blaise W Baxter; Thomas G Devlin; Demetrius K Lopes; Vivek K Reddy; Richard du Mesnil de Rochemont; Oliver C Singer; Reza Jahan Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Tudor G Jovin; Angel Chamorro; Erik Cobo; María A de Miquel; Carlos A Molina; Alex Rovira; Luis San Román; Joaquín Serena; Sonia Abilleira; Marc Ribó; Mònica Millán; Xabier Urra; Pere Cardona; Elena López-Cancio; Alejandro Tomasello; Carlos Castaño; Jordi Blasco; Lucía Aja; Laura Dorado; Helena Quesada; Marta Rubiera; María Hernandez-Pérez; Mayank Goyal; Andrew M Demchuk; Rüdiger von Kummer; Miquel Gallofré; Antoni Dávalos Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Olvert A Berkhemer; Puck S S Fransen; Debbie Beumer; Lucie A van den Berg; Hester F Lingsma; Albert J Yoo; Wouter J Schonewille; Jan Albert Vos; Paul J Nederkoorn; Marieke J H Wermer; Marianne A A van Walderveen; Julie Staals; Jeannette Hofmeijer; Jacques A van Oostayen; Geert J Lycklama à Nijeholt; Jelis Boiten; Patrick A Brouwer; Bart J Emmer; Sebastiaan F de Bruijn; Lukas C van Dijk; L Jaap Kappelle; Rob H Lo; Ewoud J van Dijk; Joost de Vries; Paul L M de Kort; Willem Jan J van Rooij; Jan S P van den Berg; Boudewijn A A M van Hasselt; Leo A M Aerden; René J Dallinga; Marieke C Visser; Joseph C J Bot; Patrick C Vroomen; Omid Eshghi; Tobien H C M L Schreuder; Roel J J Heijboer; Koos Keizer; Alexander V Tielbeek; Heleen M den Hertog; Dick G Gerrits; Renske M van den Berg-Vos; Giorgos B Karas; Ewout W Steyerberg; H Zwenneke Flach; Henk A Marquering; Marieke E S Sprengers; Sjoerd F M Jenniskens; Ludo F M Beenen; René van den Berg; Peter J Koudstaal; Wim H van Zwam; Yvo B W E M Roos; Aad van der Lugt; Robert J van Oostenbrugge; Charles B L M Majoie; Diederik W J Dippel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jennifer N Llanes; Chelsea S Kidwell; Sidney Starkman; Megan C Leary; Marc Eckstein; Jeffrey L Saver Journal: Prehosp Emerg Care Date: 2004 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 3.077
Authors: Yao Hao Teo; Isis Claire Z Y Lim; Fan Shuen Tseng; Yao Neng Teo; Cheryl Shumin Kow; Zi Hui Celeste Ng; Nyein Chan Ko Ko; Ching-Hui Sia; Aloysius S T Leow; Wesley Yeung; Wan Yee Kong; Bernard P L Chan; Vijay K Sharma; Leonard L L Yeo; Benjamin Y Q Tan Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2021-01-24 Impact factor: 3.649