| Literature DB >> 35035838 |
Zhenzhen Wang1, Yating Mou1, Hao Li1, Rui Yang1, Yanxun Jia1.
Abstract
Cerebral haemorrhage is a serious subtype of stroke, with most patients experiencing short-term haematoma enlargement leading to worsening neurological symptoms and death. The main hemostatic agents currently used for cerebral haemorrhage are antifibrinolytics and recombinant coagulation factor VIIa. However, there is no clinical evidence that patients with cerebral haemorrhage can benefit from hemostatic treatment. We provide an overview of the mechanisms of haematoma expansion in cerebral haemorrhage and the progress of research on commonly used hemostatic drugs. To improve the semantic segmentation accuracy of cerebral haemorrhage, a segmentation method based on RGB-D images is proposed. Firstly, the parallax map was obtained based on a semiglobal stereo matching algorithm and fused with RGB images to form a four-channel RGB-D image to build a sample library. Secondly, the networks were trained with 2 different learning rate adjustment strategies for 2 different structures of convolutional neural networks. Finally, the trained networks were tested and compared for analysis. The 146 head CT images from the Chinese intracranial haemorrhage image database were divided into a training set and a test set using the random number table method. The validation set was divided into four methods: manual segmentation, algorithmic segmentation, the exact Tada formula, and the traditional Tada formula to measure the haematoma volume. The manual segmentation was used as the "gold standard," and the other three algorithms were tested for consistency. The results showed that the algorithmic segmentation had the lowest percentage error of 15.54 (8.41, 23.18) % compared to the Tada formula method.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35035838 PMCID: PMC8759877 DOI: 10.1155/2022/4608648
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Comparison of treatment results between the two groups n (%).
| Group | Remarkable effect | Effective | Invalid | Total effective rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation group | 23 (57.50) | 15 (37.50) | 2 (5.00) | 38 (95.00) |
| Control group | 12 (30.00) | 17 (42.50) | 11 (27.50) | 29 (72.50) |
|
| 2.9831 | 7.4397 | ||
|
| 0.0029 | 0.0064 | ||
Comparison of FMA and ADL scores between the two groups before and after treatment ().
| Group | FMA | ADL | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | |
| Observation group | 20.34 ± 11.79 | 41.02 ± 10.12 | 36.78 ± 6.12 | 53.86 ± 7.21 |
| Control group | 20.41 ± 12.82 | 33.72 ± 11.26 | 37.02 ± 5.98 | 46.11 ± 7.92 |
|
| 0.0254 | 3.0496 | 0.1774 | 4.5765 |
|
| 0.9798 | 0.0031 | 0.8597 | 0.0000 |
Comparison of blood viscosity between the two groups before and after treatment ().
| Group | Whole blood viscosity (high shear) | Whole blood viscosity (low shear) | Plasma viscosity (MPa/s) | ESR (mm/h) | Platelet adhesion rate (%) | Erythrocyte aggregation index | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | |
| Observation group | 4.49 ± 1.69 | 3.12 ± 0.53 | 9.12 ± 1.83 | 7.69 ± 1.57 | 1.61 ± 0.24 | 0.21 ± 0.15 | 25.28 ± 5.58 | 18.15 ± 4.24 | 43.28 ± 6.18 | 38.65 ± 6.24 | 7.66 ± 1.63 | 5.29 ± 1.178 |
| Control group | 4.68 ± 1.53 | 3.74 ± 0.76 | 9.08 ± 1.88 | 8.57 ± 1.38 | 1.59 ± 0.21 | 13.6 ± 0.37 | 25.23 ± 5.52 | 21.81 ± 6.21 | 43.23 ± 6.21 | 41.81 ± 6.21 | 7.88 ± 4.12 | 7.27 ± 1.08 |
|
| 0.5271 | 4.2321 | 0.0964 | 2.6626 | 0.3966 | 2.3762 | 0.0403 | 3.0789 | 0.0352 | 2.2702 | 0.6320 | 2.547 |
|
| 0.5996 | 0.0001 | 0.9234 | 0.0094 | 0.6927 | 0.0199 | 0.9680 | 0.0029 | 09720 | 0.0260 | 0.5292 | 0.0000 |
Comparison of changes in plasma ET and NO levels before and after treatment in the two groups ().
| Group | NO (pg/ML) | ET (moL/L) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | |
| Observation group | 56.91 ± 11.82 | 78.12 ± 12.73 | 92.46 ± 15.53 | 72.19 ± 10.47 |
| Control group | 57.08 ± 12.13 | 70.56 ± 11.51 | 91.79 ± 15.48 | 82.87 ± 11.48 |
|
| 0.0635 | 2.7860 | 0.1932 | 4.3473 |
|
| 0.9495 | 0.0067 | 0.8473 | 0.0000 |
Consistency tests for different measurement methods (n = 30, ml).
| Haematoma difference | Algorithm for manual segmentation | Application of exact multifield formula to manual segmentation | Traditional multifield formula for manual segmentation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Range | −11.11–6.79 | −8.39–24.06 | −4.69–26.83 |
| Average | −0.21 | 1.98 | 2.37 |
| Median | 0.15 | −0.07 | −0.15 |
| 95% LoA | −6.46–5.97 | −12.55–16.51 | −13.34–18.07 |
| ICC (95%CI) | 0.983 | 0.923 | 0.917 |
Figure 1Bland–Altman consistency testing 1a. The algorithm segmentation has the narrowest 95% LoA of − 6.46∼5.97 ml, with 6.67% (2/30) of the points outside the 95% LoA.
Analysis of variability of different measurement methods in different haematoma morphologies and volumes [M (P25, P75), %].
| Measuring method | Haematoma morphology |
|
| Haematoma volume |
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rule ( | Irregular ( | ≥6 m ( | <6 m ( | |||||
| Algorithm segmentation | 15.73 | 13.33 | −0.085 | 0.933 | 14.31 | 21.04 | 1.442 | 0.149 |
| Exact multifield formula | 13.87 | 34.82 | 0.074 | 0.038 | 23.52 | 14.59 | −0.882 | 0.378 |
| Traditional multifield formula | 21.87 | 26.17 | 0.085 | 0.933 | 22.70 | 21.52 | 1.140 | 0.254 |
Figure 2Accuracy of different methods.
Figure 3Segmentation efficiency of different deep learning.