Matthew F Sharrock1, W Andrew Mould2, Meghan Hildreth2, E Paul Ryu2, Nathan Walborn2, Issam A Awad3, Daniel F Hanley2, John Muschelli4. 1. Division of Neurocritical Care, Department of Neurology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. 2. Division of Brain Injury Outcomes, Department of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 3. Neurovascular Surgery Program, Section of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, University of Chicago Medicine and Biological Sciences, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 4. Department of Biostatistics, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) clinical trials rely on manual linear and semi-quantitative (LSQ) estimators like the ABC/2, modified Graeb and IVH scores for timely volumetric estimation from CT. Deep learning (DL) volumetrics of ICH have recently approached the accuracy of gold-standard planimetry. However, DL and LSQ strategies have been limited by unquantified uncertainty, in particular when ICH and IVH estimates intersect. Bayesian deep learning methods can be used to approximate uncertainty, presenting an opportunity to improve quality assurance in clinical trials. METHODS: A DL model was trained to simultaneously segment ICH and IVH using diagnostic CT data from the Minimally Invasive Surgery Plus Alteplase for ICH Evacuation (MISTIE) III and Clot Lysis: Evaluating Accelerated Resolution of IVH (CLEAR) III clinical trials. Bayesian uncertainty approximation was performed using Monte-Carlo dropout. We compared the performance of our model with estimators used in the CLEAR IVH and MISTIE II trials. The reliability of planimetry, DL, and LSQ volumetrics in the setting of high ICH and IVH intersection is quantified using consensus estimates. RESULTS: Our DL model produced volume correlations and median Dice scores of .994 and .946 for ICH in MISTIE II, and .980 and .863 for IVH in CLEAR IVH, respectively, outperforming LSQ estimates from the clinical trials. We found significant linear relationships between ICH uncertainty, Dice scores (r = -.849), and relative volume difference (r = .735). CONCLUSION: In our validation clinical trial dataset, DL models with Bayesian uncertainty approximation provided superior volumetric estimates to LSQ methods with real-time estimates of model uncertainty.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) clinical trials rely on manual linear and semi-quantitative (LSQ) estimators like the ABC/2, modified Graeb and IVH scores for timely volumetric estimation from CT. Deep learning (DL) volumetrics of ICH have recently approached the accuracy of gold-standard planimetry. However, DL and LSQ strategies have been limited by unquantified uncertainty, in particular when ICH and IVH estimates intersect. Bayesian deep learning methods can be used to approximate uncertainty, presenting an opportunity to improve quality assurance in clinical trials. METHODS: A DL model was trained to simultaneously segment ICH and IVH using diagnostic CT data from the Minimally Invasive Surgery Plus Alteplase for ICH Evacuation (MISTIE) III and Clot Lysis: Evaluating Accelerated Resolution of IVH (CLEAR) III clinical trials. Bayesian uncertainty approximation was performed using Monte-Carlo dropout. We compared the performance of our model with estimators used in the CLEAR IVH and MISTIE II trials. The reliability of planimetry, DL, and LSQ volumetrics in the setting of high ICH and IVH intersection is quantified using consensus estimates. RESULTS: Our DL model produced volume correlations and median Dice scores of .994 and .946 for ICH in MISTIE II, and .980 and .863 for IVH in CLEAR IVH, respectively, outperforming LSQ estimates from the clinical trials. We found significant linear relationships between ICH uncertainty, Dice scores (r = -.849), and relative volume difference (r = .735). CONCLUSION: In our validation clinical trial dataset, DL models with Bayesian uncertainty approximation provided superior volumetric estimates to LSQ methods with real-time estimates of model uncertainty.
Authors: Daniel F Hanley; Karen Lane; Nichol McBee; Wendy Ziai; Stanley Tuhrim; Kennedy R Lees; Jesse Dawson; Dheeraj Gandhi; Natalie Ullman; W Andrew Mould; Steven W Mayo; A David Mendelow; Barbara Gregson; Kenneth Butcher; Paul Vespa; David W Wright; Carlos S Kase; J Ricardo Carhuapoma; Penelope M Keyl; Marie Diener-West; John Muschelli; Joshua F Betz; Carol B Thompson; Elizabeth A Sugar; Gayane Yenokyan; Scott Janis; Sayona John; Sagi Harnof; George A Lopez; E Francois Aldrich; Mark R Harrigan; Safdar Ansari; Jack Jallo; Jean-Louis Caron; David LeDoux; Opeolu Adeoye; Mario Zuccarello; Harold P Adams; Michael Rosenblum; Richard E Thompson; Issam A Awad Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-01-10 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Mohamed A Labib; Mitesh Shah; Amin B Kassam; Ronald Young; Lloyd Zucker; Anthony Maioriello; Gavin Britz; Charles Agbi; J D Day; Gary Gallia; Robert Kerr; Gustavo Pradilla; Richard Rovin; Charles Kulwin; Julian Bailes Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Alastair J S Webb; Natalie L Ullman; Tim C Morgan; John Muschelli; Joshua Kornbluth; Issam A Awad; Stephen Mayo; Michael Rosenblum; Wendy Ziai; Mario Zuccarrello; Francois Aldrich; Sayona John; Sagi Harnof; George Lopez; William C Broaddus; Christine Wijman; Paul Vespa; Ross Bullock; Stephen J Haines; Salvador Cruz-Flores; Stan Tuhrim; Michael D Hill; Raj Narayan; Daniel F Hanley Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-08-04 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: John Muschelli; Elizabeth M Sweeney; Natalie L Ullman; Paul Vespa; Daniel F Hanley; Ciprian M Crainiceanu Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Matthew F Sharrock; W Andrew Mould; Hasan Ali; Meghan Hildreth; Issam A Awad; Daniel F Hanley; John Muschelli Journal: Neuroinformatics Date: 2020-09-27