| Literature DB >> 35173809 |
Junfeng Liu1, Wendan Tao1, Zhetao Wang2, Xinyue Chen3, Bo Wu1, Ming Liu4.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patients with hemorrhagic transformation (HT) were reported to have hemorrhage expansion. However, identification these patients with high risk of hemorrhage expansion has not been well studied.Entities:
Keywords: hemorrhage expansion; hemorrhagic transformation; machine learning; radiomic score; thrombolysis/thrombectomy
Year: 2021 PMID: 35173809 PMCID: PMC8842178 DOI: 10.1177/17562864211060029
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ther Adv Neurol Disord ISSN: 1756-2856 Impact factor: 6.570
Figure 1.The radiomic score construction process.
Baseline demographic, clinical, and radiological characteristics.
| Variables | All ( | Without hematoma expansion
( | With hematoma expansion
( |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demographic variables | ||||
| Age, mean (SD) | 68.23 (15.02) | 67.39 (15.54) | 72.53 (11.43) | 0.20 |
| Male, | 59 (56.7) | 52 (59.8) | 7 (41.2) | 0.19 |
| Clinical variables | ||||
| OTT, median (IQR), hours | 3.00 [2.00, 4.00] | 3.00 [2.04, 4.00] | 4.00 [2.00, 4.00] | 0.77 |
| Time to HT detection, median (IQR), days | 1.51 [1.09, 4.86] | 1.74 [1.12, 4.63] | 1.14 [0.98, 6.67] | 0.38 |
| Length of stay, median (IQR), days | 15.00 [9.00, 25.00] | 15.00 [10.00, 25.00] | 14.00 [4.00, 19.00] | 0.17 |
| NIHSS score on admission, median (IQR) | 16.00 [12.00, 20.00] | 16.00 [12.00, 19.00] | 18.00 [16.00, 22.00] | 0.06 |
| Systolic blood pressure, mean (SD) | 142.07 (25.69) | 142.63 (25.10) | 139.18 (29.17) | 0.61 |
| Diastolic blood pressure, mean (SD) | 81.71 (15.13) | 82.83 (15.39) | 76.00 (12.66) | 0.09 |
| Glucose on admission, mean (SD) | 8.14 (2.19) | 8.20 (2.27) | 7.79 (1.76) | 0.48 |
| Hypertension, | 59 (56.7) | 49 (56.3) | 10 (58.8) | 0.85 |
| Diabetes, | 25 (24.0) | 19 (21.8) | 6 (35.3) | 0.23 |
| Hyperlipidemia, | 4 (3.8) | 4 (4.6) | 0 (0.0) | 0.37 |
| Atrial fibrillation, | 49 (47.1) | 39 (44.8) | 10 (58.8) | 0.30 |
| Previous stroke, | 11 (10.6) | 10 (11.5) | 1 (5.9) | 0.69 |
| Smoking, | 35 (33.7) | 32 (36.8) | 3 (17.6) | 0.17 |
| Drinking, | 27 (26.0) | 23 (26.4) | 4 (23.5) | 0.80 |
| Previous antiplatelets, | 5 (4.8) | 5 (5.7) | 0 (0.0) | 0.59 |
| Previous anticoagulation, | 8 (7.7) | 6 (6.9) | 2 (11.8) | 0.61 |
| Cardioembolic stroke, | 58 (55.8) | 48 (55.2) | 10 (58.8) | 0.78 |
| Imaging variables | ||||
| ECASS classification | 0.64 | |||
| HI-1, | 2 (1.9) | 2 (2.3) | 0 (0.0) | |
| HI-2, | 17 (16.3) | 16 (18.4) | 1 (5.9) | |
| PH-1, | 50 (48.1) | 41 (47.1) | 9 (52.9) | |
| PH-2, | 35 (33.7) | 28 (32.2) | 7 (41.2) | |
| Symptomatic HT, | 37 (35.6) | 28 (32.2) | 9 (52.9) | 0.16 |
| Location of infarction, | 0.95 | |||
| Anterior | 94 (90.4) | 79 (90.8) | 15 (88.2) | |
| Posterior | 5 (4.8) | 4 (4.6) | 1 (5.9) | |
| Anterior + Posterior | 5 (4.8) | 4 (4.6) | 1 (5.9) | |
| Midline shift, | 43 (41.3) | 35 (40.2) | 8 (47.1) | 0.60 |
| > 1/3 middle cerebral artery territory,
| 78 (75.0) | 64 (73.6) | 14 (82.4) | 0.55 |
ECASS, European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study; HI-1, hemorrhagic infarction-1; HI-2, hemorrhagic infarction-2; HT, hemorrhagic transformation; IQR, interquartile range; NIHSS, National Institute of Health Stroke Scale; OTT, onset to treatment time; PH-1, parenchymal hematoma-1; PH-2, parenchymal hematoma-2; SD, standard deviation.
Figure 2.Radiomics feature selection using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) binary logistic regression model. (a) Tuning parameter (λ) selection in the LASSO model used 5 repeats 5-fold cross-validation. The area under the curves (AUC) was plotted versus log (λ). (b) LASSO coefficient profiles (y-axis) of the selected features. The upper and lower x-axis represented the feature number and the log (λ), respectively. The dashed vertical line was drawn at the optimal lambda value of 0.0148.
Figure 3.The distribution of the 5 radiomic features in the SMOTE data set. Red means patients without hemorrhage expansion; blue means patients with hemorrhage expansion.
Predictive performance of radiomic models on the risk of hematoma expansion.
| AUC (95% CI) | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SMOTE data set ( | ||||
| Training cohort ( | 0.91 (0.84–0.97) | 0.83 | 0.89 | 0.87 |
| Testing cohort ( | 0.87 (0.73–1.00) | 0.60 | 0.85 | 0.74 |
| Original data set ( | 0.85 (0.76–0.93) | 0.82 | 0.77 | 0.78 |
AUC, area under curve; CI, confidence interval; SMOTE, synthetic minority oversampling technique.
Figure 4.Calibration curve and decision curve analysis of the radiomic score. (a) Calibration curve of the radiomic score. (b) Decision curve analysis for radiomic score. The red line indicates the decision curve of the radiomic score. The y-axis measures the net benefit; the x-axis represents the predictive probability threshold.