| Literature DB >> 34960599 |
Mahesh Anil Inamdar1, Udupi Raghavendra2, Anjan Gudigar2, Yashas Chakole2, Ajay Hegde3, Girish R Menon3, Prabal Barua4,5,6, Elizabeth Emma Palmer7, Kang Hao Cheong8, Wai Yee Chan9, Edward J Ciaccio10, U Rajendra Acharya11,12,13,14.
Abstract
Amongst the most common causes of death globally, stroke is one of top three affecting over 100 million people worldwide annually. There are two classes of stroke, namely ischemic stroke (due to impairment of blood supply, accounting for ~70% of all strokes) and hemorrhagic stroke (due to bleeding), both of which can result, if untreated, in permanently damaged brain tissue. The discovery that the affected brain tissue (i.e., 'ischemic penumbra') can be salvaged from permanent damage and the bourgeoning growth in computer aided diagnosis has led to major advances in stroke management. Abiding to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we have surveyed a total of 177 research papers published between 2010 and 2021 to highlight the current status and challenges faced by computer aided diagnosis (CAD), machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) based techniques for CT and MRI as prime modalities for stroke detection and lesion region segmentation. This work concludes by showcasing the current requirement of this domain, the preferred modality, and prospective research areas.Entities:
Keywords: CAD; Ischemic brain stroke; deep learning; machine learning
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34960599 PMCID: PMC8707263 DOI: 10.3390/s21248507
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Ischemic and hemorrhagic brain stroke.
Figure 2Age–specific incidence rate of strokes by gender in India, 2019.
Figure 3Schematic to showcase applications of AI in stroke management.
Datasets and Benchmarks.
| Modality | Database | Data Size | Area | Classes | Ground Truth | Data Info |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MRI | ISLES 2015 | SISS: Segmentation by an Expert | ||||
| MRI | ISLES 2016 | 35(train) 19(test) | Dataset provides a regression and segmentation and a task: | MODIFIED RANKIN SCALE (MRS) The 90 days mRS is a scale to assess the degree of disability 90 days after a stroke incidence (Task II assessment) (Grade: G) No Symptoms. No significant disability despite symptoms; Slight disability; need assistance Moderate disability Moderately severe disability; Severe disability; Dead. | Final lesion volume (Task 1) as manually and the clinical mRM score (Task 2) denoting the extent of disability | |
| MRI– (DWI, ADC) | ISLES 2017 | 43(train) 32(test) | Acute ischemic stroke (Challenge for stroke lesions segmentation, core and penumbra separation) | Ground–truth segmentation maps manually drawn on scans | Lesion outcome (prediction) based on acute MRI data. | |
| CBF, MTT, CBV, TMAX, CTP | ISLES 2018 | 63(train) 40(test) | Penumbra–core separation using CT | Expert segmentations of the infarct lesions. | Acute ischemic stroke patients with 8 hrs. of stroke onset and MRI DWI within 3 h. after CTP. |
Figure 4Articles selection process based on the PRISMA guidelines.
The exclusion and inclusion criteria.
| Inclusion | Exclusion |
|---|---|
| Studies pertaining to | Studies pertaining to |
| 1. CT and MRI (including variants) | 1. Treatment of strokes (Exclusively) |
| 2. Ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes | 2. Pure Statistical and Biological methods of treatment. |
| 3. Measurement of the degree of the infarct and damage. | 3. Technical working and advancement of algorithms |
| 4. Prognosis of strokes and the likelihood of damage | 4. Lesions extraneous to strokes |
| 5. Lesion detection and segmentation (core and penumbra region) | |
| 6. ML and DL techniques for segmentation of lesion regions | |
| 7. Latest architectures in DL techniques and factorization techniques for feature–specific algorithms. |
Figure 5Structure of the review process.
Modalities at a Glance.
| Modality | Description |
|---|---|
| NCCT (CT) | CT uses a beam of X–rays followed by a process of high–powered computers to generate images of soft tissues and bones. Overall |
| Perfusion CT | These scans help identify areas adequately supplied with blood (perfused) and provide detailed information about blood flow to the brain. |
| Angiography CT | CT angiography is a type of medical test that combines a CT scan with an injection of a special dye to produce pictures of blood vessels and tissues. Within an intracranial vessel it may also identify thrombus, and may guide for intra–arterial thrombolysis or clot retrieval [ |
| MRI | MRI is based on the magnetization properties of atomic nuclei. Protons in the water nuclei of tissues are excited and relaxed, and subsequently capturing the released energy. Based on the relaxation time, T1 and T2 tissues are characterized [ |
| T1 weighted (MRI) | Characterized by shorter relaxation time. Following noticeable changes in scans [ CSF appears dark 2. White matter appears light 3. Cortex appears gray 4. Inflammation appears dark |
| T2 weighted (MRI) | Characterized by longer relaxation time. Following noticeable changes in scans [ CSF appears bright 2. White matter appears dark gray 3. Cortex appears light gray 4. Inflammation appear bright |
| Flair (MRI) | Characterized by longer relaxation time than T2 weighted images. Following noticeable changes in scans [ CSF appears dark 2. White Matter appears dark gray 3. Cortex appears light gray 4. Inflammation appears bright |
| DWI (MRI) | Detect the random movements of water protons. Spontaneous movements, rapidly become restricted in ischemic brain tissue which appear bright in scans. It is an extremely sensitive method for detecting acute stroke. [ CSF: 3000–3400 2. White matter: 670–800 3. Cortex: 800–1000 |
CSF, cerebral spinal fluid; CBV, cerebral blood volume; MTT, mean transit time.
Figure 6Various neuroimaging modalities. (a) CT Angiography, (b) CT Perfusion, (c) T1–weighted imaging, (d) T2–weighted imaging, (e) FLAIR (fluid attenuated inversion recovery), (f) DWI (diffusion weighted imaging).
Radiological features based on modalities.
| Stroke | Ischemic | Hemorrhagic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Modality | Acute (0–7 days) | Subacute (1–3 Weeks) | Chronic (>3 Weeks) | Acute (0–7 Days) | Subacute (1–3 Weeks) | Chronic (>3 Weeks) |
|
| Loss of grey–white matter differentiation, and hypo attenuation (low density, obstruction) of deep nuclei [ | Attenuation of the cortex [ | Hypo density region [ | Hyper dense with fluid levels [ | Less intense with ring–like profile [ | Iso dense or modest confined hypo density [ |
|
| Low T1 signal [ | Low T1 signal [ | Low T1 signal [ | Iso intensity or slight hypo intensity with thin hyper intense rim in the periphery [ | Hyper intensity [ | Hypo intensity [ |
|
| infarct remains Hyper intense [ | Hyper intensity [ | High T2 signal [ | Hypo intense with hyper intense perilesional rim [ | Hyper intensity [ | Hypo intensity [ |
|
| Decreased ADC values with maximal signal reduction within 1 to 4 days marked with hyper intensity [ | First ADC values rise and return close to baseline, | ADC signal high [ | ADC: 0.70 [ | ADC: 0.72 [ | ADC: 2.56 [ |
ADC, apparent diffusion coefficient.
Figure 7General block diagram of a typical ML–based CAD system.
Summary of computer aided statistical techniques for lesion segmentation and stroke detection.
| Articles | Modality | Technique | Outcome | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tang et al. [ | CT | Image texture analysis through Circular Adaptive Region of Interest method | SROC: [0.99–0.94] | 2011 |
| Sajjadi et al. [ | CT | Translation–invariant wavelet for image enhancement | Higher information image extracted | 2011 |
| Nowinski et al. [ | NCCT | Analyzing hemisphere attenuation values using percentile difference ratios | 2013 | |
| Filho et al. [ | CT | Analysis of brain tissue density | 2017 | |
| Flottman et al. [ | CT | Novel threshold free method | 2017 | |
| Lo et al. [ | NCCT | Local contract enhancement using Ranklet Transformation and probability based detection | GLCM Ranklet | 2019 |
| Bhaduria et al. [ | CT | Segmenting through the features of both fuzzy clustering and region–based active contour model | 2014 | |
| Haan et al. [ | CT, DWI, T2FLAIR | Clustering algorithm for lesion demarcation in AIS | Reduced processing | 2015 |
| YAHIAOUI et al. [ | CT | Differentiation of brain pathology area (hypodense) from its adjacent normal parenchym (i.e., contrast enhancement) using Laplacian Pyramid | Laplacian Pyramid algorithm gives Better and faster (10.46 s) result than DWT, especially in small sized lesions. | 2016 |
| Reboucas et al. [ | CT | Level set based approach on brain densities (radiological) method to generate stroke segmentation | Segmentation time and SACC | 2017 |
| Kumar et al. [ | CT | Entropy based segmentation | 2020 | |
| Vasconcelos et al. [ | CT | Adaptive Brain Tissue Density Analysis | 2020 | |
| Nabizadeh et al. [ | MRI | Histogram–based gravitational optimization algorithm | 2014 | |
| Ghosh et al. [ | Hierarchical Region Splitting, Symmetry Integrated Region Growing and Modified Watershed Segmentation | 2014 | ||
| Ledig et al. [ | MRI | Refinement using Multi–Atlas Label based context with Expectation–Maximization. | 64.7% | 2015 |
| Farsani et al. [ | MRI | Diffusion restricted characterisitics | 2016 | |
| Moeskops et al. [ | MRI | CNN | 2017 | |
| Ji et al. [ | MRI | Gaussian Mixture Model | 2017 | |
| Kamnitsas et al. [ | MRI | A 11 layered dual pathway architecture for joint processing of adjacent image patches (DeepMedic) | 2017 |
S, receiver output receiver; GLCM, gray–level co–occurrence matrix; S, segmentation accuracy; S, segmentation dice coefficient, C, classification accuracy.
Summary of various ML techniques applied for stroke detection (ischemic) and segmentation.
| Articles | Modality | Technique | Outcome | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Filho et al. [ | CT | Feature extraction based on density patterns (radiological) and classification of strokes through Bayesian, SVM, kNN, MLP, and OPF classifiers | Fastest extraction time | 2017 |
| Rajini et al. [ | CT | Symmetry (mid line shift) based segmentation; image texture analysis using GLCC and classification using SVM, k–NN, ANN, decision tree | SVM | 2013 |
| Maier et al. [ | MRI | Generalized Linear Models, RFs and CNN are evaluated and compared with each other for sub–acute ischemic stroke patients | AdaBoost | 2015 |
| Mitra et al. [ | FLAIR MRI | Bayesian–Markov Random Field and RF | 2014 | |
| Bharathi et al. [ | MRI T1, T2, DWI and FLAIR | Feature Extraction using GLCM and unsupervised extraction Kmeans clustering; and training RF classifier for detection of ischemic stroke lesion | 2019 | |
| Maier et al. [ | T1w, T2w, FLAIR and DWI | Extra Tree Forest framework for voxel–wise classification | 2015 | |
| McKinley et al. [ | MRI T1, T2 | Spatial | ISLES (leave one out) | 2015 |
| Robben et al. [ | T1w– and T2w, Flair and DWI | cascaded extremely randomized trees | 2016 | |
| Chen et al. [ | MRI | random forests (cascaded) with dense conditional randomfields | ISLES 2015/BRATS 2018 | 2020 |
| Griffanti et al. [ | T2 and FLAIR | k–nearest neighbor | 2016 | |
| Griffis et al. [ | T1 | Gaussian naïve Bayes | 2016 | |
| Karthik et al. [ | MRI | Multidirectional features based on Discrete curvelet transform and watershed algorithm for fetching the ROI and then applying support vector machines to develop the classification system. | 2017 | |
| Pereira et al. [ | MRI | Unsupervised feature learning through RBM with RF classifier | 2018 | |
| Lin et al. [ | CT | DBSCAN, hierarchical DBSCAN (HDBSCAN) | DBSCAN (Avg) | 2019 |
| Subudhia et al. [ | MRI | Delaunay triangulation based segmentation optimized by Darwinian particle swarm optimization | 2018 | |
| Peixoto et al. [ | CT | SCM, SVM, MLP | 2018 | |
| Garg et al. [ | Electronic Data (NLP) | Classification of Ischemic Stroke Subtype (TOAST) using ML (RF, GBM, KNN, XGBOOST, SVM, Extra Trees) and NLP | Kappa stacking: | 2019 |
GLCM, gray–level co–occurrence matrix; DC, dice coefficient; I, ischemic stroke dice coefficient; I, accuracy; I, intra class correlation coefficient; I, ischemic precision; I, ischemic FScore; I, ischemic specificity; I, ischemic sensitivity.
Figure 8Generalized stages for lesion segmentation, identification, and classification of stroke regions.
Figure 9Generalized stages for lesion segmentation, identification, and classification of stroke regions.
Summary of various DL methods applied for IS detection and segmentation.
| Articles | Modality | Technique | Loss Function | Outcome | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lisowska et al. [ | NCCT | Bilateral CNN + Atlas | squared hinge loss | 2020 | |
| Abulnaga et al. [ | CTP | Pyramid Scene Parsing Network | Focal Loss | 2017 | |
| Vargas et al. [ | CTP | CNN LSTM [Train 356, Validation 40] | 2018 | ||
| Barman et al. [ | CT A | DeepSymNet Two identical CNNs with 3 Inception module for learning the low and high level volume 3D representation common to the two brain hemispheres. | L–1 difference | 2019 | |
| Clèrigues et al. [ | CT, CT–PWI CBF, CBV& MTT | DL based segmentation approach using 2D patch based for of the acute stroke lesion core. | To minimize the effects of class imbalance Generalized Dice Loss (GDL) with the cross entropy loss. | 2019 | |
| Shinohara et al. [ | NCCT | Xception architecture pre–trained on the ImageNet database | classification loss | 2020 | |
| Barros et al. [ | NCCT | CNN with two convolutional layers (256 nodes, 64/128 feature resp.) followed by 2 FCN. Each dense layer has. Max–polling layer with a 2 × 2 kernel and a 2 × 2 stride. | Severe | 2019 | |
| Oman et al. [ | CTA, NCCT | 3D CNN | 2019 | ||
| Hu et al. [ | 3D MRI | 3D residual framework | Focal Loss | BRATS 2015 | 2020 |
| Bertels et al. [ | CTP | Contra Lateral Information CNN | Binary cross–entropy | 2018 | |
| Kuang et al. [ | NCCT | EIS–Net Triple–CNN with three triple encoders and one de–coder with multi–level attention gate modules. | Combination of weighted binary cross entropy and Generalized Dice–Coefficient. | 2021 | |
| Avetisian et al. [ | NCCT | Dual Path Network which fusing the features of Res–Nets and densely–connected networks | Focal Loss | 2020 | |
| Wang et al. [ | MRI | 3D RF trained on ISLES dataset | Hybrid loss function | 2016 | |
| Havaei M [ | T1, T2, T1C | CNN (two pathways cascaded architecture) | cross–entropy loss | SISS | 2020 |
| Chen et al. [ | DWI | CNN | Cross Entropy | 2016 | |
| Lucas et al. [ | FLAIR, | FCNN–MatConvNet | cross–entropy loss | 2017 | |
| Alex et al. [ | T1, T2,T1C FLAIR | Stacked denoising autoencoders | High and Low Grade Glioma | 2017 | |
| Lucas et al. [ | MRI | Res–UNets | Weighted sum of a classification and soft QDice metric | 33% lower | 2017 |
| Liu et al. [ | MRI | FCN (Res–FCN) | Customized Loss Function | 2018 | |
| Zhang et al. [ | DWI | 3D FC–DenseNet | Customized Loss function + Dice Loss function | 2018 | |
| Chen et al. [ | 3D MRI | VoxResNet: Stacked residual modules with convolutional/de–convolutional (total 25 volumetric) | spatial information loss | 2018 | |
| Li et al. [ | MRI FLAIR | Two convolutional layers are repeatedly employed, | Dice Loss | MICCAI 2017 | 2018 |
| Praveen et al. [ | FLAIR, | Stacked Sparse autoencoder layers and support vector machine classifier as the output layer. | Mean Squared Loss | ISLES 2015 | 2018 |
| Li et al. [ | CT, | Deep Residual Dilated U-Net | Cross–entropy loss | MICCAI | 2018 |
| Luna et al. [ | MRI | 3D CNN | normalized categorical cross entropy loss | MRBrainS18 | 2019 |
| Winzeck et al. [ | MRI | Ensemble Res–CNN: | Costumed Loss Function | 2019 | |
| Li et al. [ | T1, T2, T1c and FLAIR | U–Net structure with a new cross–layer architecture (up skip connection) and incorporating inception modules | DSC | [train] | 2018 |
| Malla et al. [ | MRI | CNN [Deepmedic] | Dice Similarity Coefficient | 17% improved | 2019 |
| Yang et al. [ | T1 MRI | Cross–level fusion with context (inference) network for stroke lesion segmentation (chronic) | DLF | ATLAS | 2019 |
| Qi et al. [ | MRI | X–Net (a nonlocal operation to capture long–ranged dependencies) or the chronic stroke lesion segmentation | DLF | ATLAS | 2019 |
| Liu et al. [ | MRI | multi-kernel DCNN with pixel dropout | DLF | SPES | 2019 |
| Chin et al. [ | MRI | Cascaded Networks (U-Net) | Train (Private Dataset) | 2020 | |
| Liu et al. [ | MRI | Attention–based DRANet. | DLF | (748 Images Sub-acute) | 2016 |
| ZHANG et al. [ | DWI | A triple–branch DSN architecture with a multi–plane fusion network | Customized Loss Function | ISLES 2015 SSIS | 2020 |
| Amin et al. [ | MRI | Auto encoders [segmentation] | 2020 | ||
| Bui et al. [ | MRI | 3D Dense Net | modified DLF | MRBrainS18 | 2019 |
| Joshi et al. [ | DWI-MRI | Dilated and Transposed CNN | Binary cross entropy plus the dice loss | ISLES 2015–2017 | 2018 |
| Gupta et al. [ | MRI | Multi–Sequence Network architecture: Conv. Layers, Pooling Layers (2 × 2), Up sampling layers (2 × 2), Dropout Layers, | Binary Cross–entropy | ISLES 2015 | 2019 |
| Kumar et al. [ | MRI | Classifier–Segmenter network (modified UNet for segmentation) | multi–scale loss function (customized) | ISLES 2017–SPES dataset | 2020 |
| Satish et al. [ | DWI, PWI | Adversarial Architecture: Encoder–decoder as segmentor. Discriminators: CNN | cross–entropy | ISLES 2015 | 2020 |
DLF, dice loss function; I, accuracy; I, intra class correlation coefficient; I, ischemic precision; I, ischemic FScore; I, ischemic specificity; I, ischemic sensitivity.
Summary of various methods applied for stroke detection (hemorrhagic).
| Modality | Articles | Technique | Loss Function | Outcome | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CT | Phong et al. [ | LeNet, GoogLeNet, and Inception–ResNet | F1 Score 0.997 (LeNet) | 2017 | |
| CT | Majumdar et al. [ | 9 (3 × 3) convolutional blocks, (2 × 2) max–pooling, BN and ReLU | 81% | 2018 | |
| NCCT | Patel et al. [ | CNN with two distinct pathways integrating contextual information | categorical cross entropy | 2019 | |
| CT | Cho et al. [ | FCN–8s | 2019 | ||
| CT | Patel et al. [ | CNN and RNN | Binary Cross Entropy | 2019 | |
| NCCT | Barros et al. [ | CNN | 2020 | ||
| NCCT | Lee et al. [ | CNN | 2020 | ||
| CT | Xu et al. [ | Masked RNN and ML | Model[Resnet50+ | 2020 | |
| CT | Li et al. [ | Pre–trained Dilated UNet | 2021 | ||
| NCCT | Arab et al. [ | U–Net with deep supervision. Encoder: Residual block Decoder: Convl layers | Dice similarity coefficients | 2020 | |
| CT | Grewal et al. [ | Recurrent Attention DenseNet, bidirectional LSTM layer | 2018 | ||
| NCCT | Burduja et al. [ | CNN & LSTM | Binary cross–entropy | 2020 |
ICC, infraclass correlation coefficients; H, dice similarity coefficient; ASSD, average symmetric surface distance; H, log loss; H, Sensitivity, H: Specificity.
Summary of different methods applied for prognosis of strokes.
| Articles | Modality | Technique | Prediction | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rebouças et al. [ | CT | Feature extraction based on density patterns (radiological) and classification of strokes through kNN, SVM, MLP, OPF and Bayesian classifiers | Identify & classify the occurrence of strokes (extent and severity). | 2017 |
| Robben et al. [ | CTP | Modifed DeepMedic | Final infarct volume | 2019 |
| Bentley et al. [ | CT | SVM with an | Predict symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage | 2014 |
| Stier et al. [ | Tmax MRI | Tissue Fate Features in AIS | 2016 | |
| Choi et al. [ | MRI | Lesion outcome prediction—3D Res U–Net—CNN Clinical outcome prediction–CNN–Log Regression | Automated prognosis for post–treatment ischemic stroke | 2016 |
| Chen et al. [ | CT | CNN | Early stroke detection (ischemic) system with CNN | 2017 |
| Lucas et al. [ | CT | 3D U–net appended with Convolutional auto–encoder | 2018 | |
| Lucas et al. [ | CT | 3D UNets | Predict Ischemic Stroke Growth | 2018 |
| Bento et al. [ | SVM | Early identification of Carotidartery Atherosclerosis | 2019 | |
| Song et al. [ | GAN | Prediction of perfusion parameters | 2019 | |
| Giacalone et al. [ | SVM | Final lesion prediction | 2018 | |
| Arbabshirani et al. [ | CT | DCNN | Detecting of ICH based on clinical database of brain CT images |
Figure 10Prototype model for remote patient monitoring with cloud–based AI Model.