| Literature DB >> 35207627 |
Wen-Hui Fang1, Ying-Chu Chen2, Ming-Chen Tsai3, Pi-Shao Ko2,4, Ding-Lian Wang2, Sui-Lung Su2.
Abstract
(1) Background: Posterior circulation ischemic stroke has high mortality and disability rates and requires an early prediction prognosis to provide the basis for an interventional approach. Current quantitative measures are only able to accurately assess the prognosis of patients using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). However, it is difficult to obtain MRI images in critically urgent cases. Therefore, the development of a noncontrast CT-based rapid-assist tool is needed to enhance the value of the clinical application. (2) Objective: This study aimed to develop an auxiliary-annotating noncontrast CT-efficient tool, which is based on a deep learning model, to provide a quantitative scale and the prognosis of posterior circulation ischemic stroke patients. (3)Entities:
Keywords: deep learning; noncontrast CT; pc-ASPECTS; posterior circulation ischemic stroke
Year: 2022 PMID: 35207627 PMCID: PMC8876281 DOI: 10.3390/jpm12020138
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Pers Med ISSN: 2075-4426
Figure 1Flow chart of case admission and 5-fold cross-validation method. (a) Flow chart of case admission: The research subjects were patients with a confirmed diagnosis of posterior circulation ischemic stroke in the stroke registry at TSGH between 1 November 2019 and 31 July 2020, and those with an interval of fewer than three days between CT and MRI exams were selected, and their images were annotated by neurologists. A total of 31 patients participated in the research, and there was a total of 36 visits, taking into account recurrences and repeated visits during the study period. The subjects were divided into five subsets to conduct the 5-fold cross-validation analysis. (b) The 5-fold cross-validation method: after dividing the admitted subjects into five subsets, each subset would be used as the test set in turn, and the model performance would be evaluated by predicting the results of the test sets in five rounds of training and testing. Finally, the model performance was evaluated using the prediction results of the test sets. The subsets in blue were used as training and validation sets to construct the model, and the subsets in red were used as test sets for the model prediction.
Basic demographic distribution.
| Good Prognosis (Visits = 18) | Poor Prognosis (Visits = 18) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender (%) | 0.044 * | ||
| Male | 13 (72.2%) | 7 (38.9%) | |
| Female | 5 (27.8%) | 11 (61.1%) | |
| Age (mean ± SD) | 66.83 ± 11.45 | 74.83 ± 10.09 | 0.007 * |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 24.58 ± 4.84 | 24.23 ± 2.59 | 0.874 |
| Treatment | 1.000 | ||
| Drugs | 16 (88.9%) | 15 (83.3%) | |
| EVT + rt-PA | 2 (11.1%) | 3 (16.7%) | |
| Systolic blood pressure, mmHg | 148.41 ± 32.79 | 147.06 ± 29.08 | 0.959 |
| Diastolic blood pressure, mmHg | 82.35 ± 18.69 | 79.88 ± 14.56 | 0.890 |
| Heart rate, beats per minute | 86.06 ± 16.39 | 94.44 ± 28.44 | 0.408 |
| pc-ASPECTS | 9.28 ± 0.75 | 8.78 ± 1.11 | 0.164 |
| NIHSS | 3.00 ± 1.90 | 7.75 ± 5.39 | 0.001 * |
Good prognosis: mRS ≤ 2; poor prognosis: mRS ≥ 3; * p-value < 0.05.
Figure 2Schematic diagram comparing the structural range predictions by the image segmentation model and physician annotation. The upper half shows the structural regions according to the model prediction results of the model’s prediction of the structural area, which are presented in yellow, and the lower half shows the structural regions annotated by the physician, which are presented in blue. There are a total of nine cerebral structures for posterior circulation: (a) left cerebellum; (b) right cerebellum; (c) left occipital lobe; (d) right occipital lobe; (e) left thalamus; (f) right thalamus; (g) medulla oblongata; (h) midbrain; and (i) pons.
Performance of the circulation structure after image segmentation model recognition.
| Structure | Mean IoU | Subset I IoU | Subset II IoU | Subset III IoU | Subset IV IoU | Subset V IoU |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Left lateral cerebellum | 0.78 | 0.77 | 0.81 | 0.79 | 0.75 | 0.78 |
| Right lateral cerebellum | 0.79 | 0.78 | 0.83 | 0.81 | 0.77 | 0.76 |
| Left lateral occipital lobe | 0.74 | 0.78 | 0.73 | 0.77 | 0.75 | 0.67 |
| Right lateral occipital lobe | 0.68 | 0.66 | 0.74 | 0.72 | 0.63 | 0.65 |
| Left lateral thalamus | 0.73 | 0.72 | 0.68 | 0.76 | 0.79 | 0.70 |
| Right lateral thalamus | 0.75 | 0.73 | 0.78 | 0.79 | 0.71 | 0.74 |
| Medulla oblongata | 0.82 | 0.85 | 0.82 | 0.84 | 0.81 | 0.78 |
| Midbrain | 0.83 | 0.82 | 0.80 | 0.86 | 0.85 | 0.82 |
| Pons | 0.75 | 0.74 | 0.77 | 0.79 | 0.72 | 0.73 |
The intersection over union (IoU): The similarity between annotated pixels and predicted pixels, defined as the size of the intersection divided by the size of the union of the test sets.
Figure 3ROC curves of quantitatively and semiquantitatively calculated scores for prognosis prediction. The AUC for prognosis prediction by integrated quantitative score was 0.74, with a sensitivity of 0.67, and a specificity of 0.72. The AUC for prognosis prediction by the pc-ASPECTS calculated semiquantitatively, with a sensitivity of 0.67 and a specificity of 0.44, was 0.63. The results of the DeLong test show that the ROC for predicting prognosis using the quantitative integrated score was significantly better (p = 0.035).