Ludger Feyen1,2,3, Peter Schott1, Hendrik Ochmann1, Marcus Katoh1, Patrick Haage2,3, Patrick Freyhardt1,3. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, 27664HELIOS Klinikum Krefeld, Helios Klinikum Krefeld, Germany. 2. University Witten/Herdecke, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Germany. 3. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Helios University Hospital Wuppertal, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Clinical outcomes vary considerably among individuals with vessel occlusion of the posterior circulation. In the present study we evaluated machine learning algorithms in their ability to discriminate between favourable and unfavourable outcomes in patients with endovascular treatment of acute ischaemic stroke of the posterior circulation. METHODS: This retrospective study evaluated three algorithms (generalised linear model, K-nearest neighbour and random forest) to predict functional outcomes at dismissal of 30 patients with acute occlusion of the basilar artery who were treated with thrombectomy. Input variables encompassed baseline as well as peri and postprocedural data. Favourable outcome was defined as a modified Rankin scale score of 0-2 and unfavourable outcome was defined as a modified Rankin scale score of 3-6. The performance of the algorithms was assessed with the area under the receiver operating curve and with confusion matrixes. RESULTS: Successful reperfusion was achieved in 83%, with 30% of the patients having a favourable outcome. The area under the curve was 0.93 for the random forest model, 0.86 for the K-nearest neighbour model and 0.78 for the generalised linear model. The accuracy was 0.69 for the generalised linear model and 0.84 for the random forest and the K nearest neighbour models. CONCLUSION: Favourable and unfavourable outcomes at dismissal of patients with acute ischaemic stroke of the posterior circulation can be predicted immediately after the follow-up non-enhanced computed tomography using machine learning.
PURPOSE: Clinical outcomes vary considerably among individuals with vessel occlusion of the posterior circulation. In the present study we evaluated machine learning algorithms in their ability to discriminate between favourable and unfavourable outcomes in patients with endovascular treatment of acute ischaemic stroke of the posterior circulation. METHODS: This retrospective study evaluated three algorithms (generalised linear model, K-nearest neighbour and random forest) to predict functional outcomes at dismissal of 30 patients with acute occlusion of the basilar artery who were treated with thrombectomy. Input variables encompassed baseline as well as peri and postprocedural data. Favourable outcome was defined as a modified Rankin scale score of 0-2 and unfavourable outcome was defined as a modified Rankin scale score of 3-6. The performance of the algorithms was assessed with the area under the receiver operating curve and with confusion matrixes. RESULTS: Successful reperfusion was achieved in 83%, with 30% of the patients having a favourable outcome. The area under the curve was 0.93 for the random forest model, 0.86 for the K-nearest neighbour model and 0.78 for the generalised linear model. The accuracy was 0.69 for the generalised linear model and 0.84 for the random forest and the K nearest neighbour models. CONCLUSION: Favourable and unfavourable outcomes at dismissal of patients with acute ischaemic stroke of the posterior circulation can be predicted immediately after the follow-up non-enhanced computed tomography using machine learning.
Authors: A P Jadhav; S M Desai; D M Panczykowski; S Rangaraju; D Campbell; J K Ritvonen; M Schreiner; H Silvennoinen; J Gerber; V Puetz; S A Raza; D C Haussen; R G Nogueira; D Strbian; T G Jovin; P J Lindsberg Journal: Eur J Neurol Date: 2020-07-28 Impact factor: 6.089
Authors: Mayank Goyal; Bijoy K Menon; Wim H van Zwam; Diederik W J Dippel; Peter J Mitchell; Andrew M Demchuk; Antoni Dávalos; Charles B L M Majoie; Aad van der Lugt; Maria A de Miquel; Geoffrey A Donnan; Yvo B W E M Roos; Alain Bonafe; Reza Jahan; Hans-Christoph Diener; Lucie A van den Berg; Elad I Levy; Olvert A Berkhemer; Vitor M Pereira; Jeremy Rempel; Mònica Millán; Stephen M Davis; Daniel Roy; John Thornton; Luis San Román; Marc Ribó; Debbie Beumer; Bruce Stouch; Scott Brown; Bruce C V Campbell; Robert J van Oostenbrugge; Jeffrey L Saver; Michael D Hill; Tudor G Jovin Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-02-18 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Gianluca Brugnara; Ulf Neuberger; Mustafa A Mahmutoglu; Martha Foltyn; Christian Herweh; Simon Nagel; Silvia Schönenberger; Sabine Heiland; Christian Ulfert; Peter Arthur Ringleb; Martin Bendszus; Markus A Möhlenbruch; Johannes A R Pfaff; Philipp Vollmuth Journal: Stroke Date: 2020-10-12 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: M Mahmoudi; C Dargazanli; F Cagnazzo; I Derraz; C Arquizan; A Wacogne; J Labreuche; A Bonafe; D Sablot; P H Lefevre; G Gascou; N Gaillard; C Scott; V Costalat; I Mourand Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-08-20 Impact factor: 3.825
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
Authors: Janne Hamann; Lisa Herzog; Carina Wehrli; Tomas Dobrocky; Andrea Bink; Marco Piccirelli; Leonidas Panos; Johannes Kaesmacher; Urs Fischer; Christoph Stippich; Andreas R Luft; Jan Gralla; Marcel Arnold; Roland Wiest; Beate Sick; Susanne Wegener Journal: Eur J Neurol Date: 2020-12-21 Impact factor: 6.089