| Literature DB >> 35629201 |
Chao Ma1,2, Liyang Wang1, Chuntian Gao1,2, Dongkang Liu2, Kaiyuan Yang1,2, Zhe Meng1,2, Shikai Liang2, Yupeng Zhang3,4, Guihuai Wang1,2.
Abstract
Patients with hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) have a high hematoma expansion (HE) incidence. Noninvasive prediction HE helps doctors take effective measures to prevent accidents. This study retrospectively analyzed 253 cases of hypertensive intraparenchymal hematoma. Baseline non-contrast-enhanced CT scans (NECTs) were collected at admission and compared with subsequent CTs to determine the presence of HE. An end-to-end deep learning method based on CT was proposed to automatically segment the hematoma region, region of interest (ROI) feature extraction, and HE prediction. A variety of algorithms were employed for comparison. U-Net with attention performs best in the task of segmenting hematomas, with the mean Intersection overUnion (mIoU) of 0.9025. ResNet-34 achieves the most robust generalization capability in HE prediction, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.9267, an accuracy of 0.8827, and an F1 score of 0.8644. The proposed method is superior to other mainstream models, which will facilitate accurate, efficient, and automated HE prediction.Entities:
Keywords: deep learning; end-to-end; hematoma expansion; hypertension
Year: 2022 PMID: 35629201 PMCID: PMC9147936 DOI: 10.3390/jpm12050779
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Pers Med ISSN: 2075-4426
Figure 1The workflow of this end-to-end deep learning method.
Figure 2Criteria and statistics for the selection of retrospective data.
Statistical results of clinical indicators of ICH patients.
| Characteristics | HE Group | NHE Group |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Patients, No. (%) | 57 (22.5%) | 196 (74.5%) | - |
| Age, y, median, (IQR) | 57.0 (48.0–64.0) | 59.0 (50.8–68.0) | 0.179 |
| Sex, M/F | 39/18 | 118/78 | 0.261 |
| Hematoma Volume (mL), mean, SD | 17.8 (16.3) | 27.5 (21.7) | <0.001 |
| Hematoma Maximum 3D shape diameter (mm), mean, SD | 47.5 (15.4) | 57.5 (17.3) | <0.001 |
| Hematoma Maximum 2D slice diameter (mm), mean, SD | 40.6 (15.2) | 49.8 (16.9) | <0.001 |
Note: SD represents standard deviation; IQR represents interquartile range.
Figure 3Visualization of manual labeling and each segmentation model. where (A) represents a manually labeled slice; (B–D) represent the result of the automatic segmentation of U-Net with attention, U-Net++, and U-Net, respectively.
Comparison of model segmentation results.
| Model | mIoU | Acc | Kappa | Dice | Parameter |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U-Net attention | 0.9025 | 0.9976 | 0.8922 | 0.9461 | 34,894,262 |
| U-Net++ | 0.8773 | 0.9969 | 0.8605 | 0.9303 | 8,368,872 |
| U-Net | 0.8847 | 0.9971 | 0.8700 | 0.9350 | 13,404,354 |
The performance of different prediction models on the validation set.
| Model | Acc | Recall | Prec | F1 Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ResNet-34 | 0.8827 ± 0.0562 | 0.8281 ± 0.0703 | 0.9058 ± 0.0699 | 0.8644 ± 0.0663 |
| ResNet-18 | 0.8432 ± 0.0216 | 0.7304 ± 0.0344 | 0.9063 ± 0.0293 | 0.8086 ± 0.0306 |
| VGG-16 | 0.8043 ± 0.0441 | 0.7199 ± 0.1316 | 0.8431 ± 0.0629 | 0.7629 ± 0.0713 |
Note: Acc and Prec are abbreviations for accuracy and precision, respectively.
Figure 4ROC and corresponding AUC of each prediction model on the validation set. where (A–C) represent the results of ResNet-34, ResNet-18, VGG-16, respectively.