| Literature DB >> 35665277 |
Zhuo Feng1, Miaomiao Hu2, Wei Yuan1, Xiaojun Zhao3, Jiazhi Zeng1, Kaibin Zhou4.
Abstract
This study aimed to explore the application value of multifeature fusion classification algorithm based on deep learning and Yishen Tiaodu acupuncture in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with cerebral infarction in convalescence. Methods. 62 patients with cerebral infarction were randomly classified into the experimental group and the control group, with 31 patients in each group. All patients received the functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) examination. The image processing method was the multifeature fusion classification algorithm based on deep learning. DICE coefficient, accuracy, and sensitivity were used to evaluate the image processing performance of traditional and new algorithms. Patients in the experimental group were treated with Yishen Tiaodu acupuncture, while patients in the control group were treated with ordinary acupuncture. The evaluation of the cyberchondria severity scale (CSS) and the activities of daily living (ADL) was performed at enrollment, 15 days after treatment, 28 days after treatment, and 1 month after treatment. The results showed that the quality of fMRI images processed by multifeature fusion classification algorithm based on deep learning was signally improved. The clinical efficacy of the traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) syndrome score (86.7% vs. 60.9%) and neurological impairment score (83.4% vs. 53.5%) in the experimental group were remarkably higher compared with the control group (P < 0.05). After treatment, the TCM syndrome score of the experimental group was markedly lower than that of the control group, while the ADL score was higher (P < 0.05). Conclusion. The performance of multifeature fusion classification algorithm based on deep learning in fMRI image processing of patients with cerebral infarction is better than that of traditional algorithms. Yishen Tiaodu acupuncture has a good therapeutic effect on the recovery of motor and neurological function in patients with cerebral infarction at convalescence.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35665277 PMCID: PMC9159848 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3592145
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Image acquisition scanning parameters.
| Scanning parameters | The fMRI imaging technology |
|---|---|
| Repeat time TR (ms) | 1800 |
| Echo timeTE (ms) | 35 |
| Flip angle FA (°) | 90 |
| Lamination thickness (mm) | 3.25 |
| Visual field FOV (mm2) | 256 × 256 |
| Matrix | 256 × 256 |
| Tier number | 40 |
| Interval (mm) | 1 |
| Acquisition phase | 180 |
| Scanning time (s) | 440 |
Figure 1Pooling diagram. (a) Maximum pooling; (b) mean pooling.
Comparison of gender, age, and course of disease between the two groups.
| Group | Number of samples | Sexuality | Age (years) | Course of disease (months) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | ||||
| Experimental group | 31 | 16 | 15 | 63.8 ± 6.3 | 6.23 ± 1.38 |
| Control group | 31 | 12 | 19 | 64.2 ± 5.5 | 6.76 ± 1.43 |
Figure 2Educational level distribution of patients in the two groups.
Figure 3Typical case image.
Figure 4Comparison of image processing effects between the traditional algorithm and multi-feature fusion classification algorithm based on deep learning. ∗Compared with traditional method, P < 0.05.
Comparison of TCM symptom score and clinical efficacy between the two groups.
| Group | The number of cases | Heal | Effectual | Have the effect | Nullification | Effective rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental group | 31 | 2 | 7 | 18 | 4 | 87.1% |
| Control group | 31 | 2 | 4 | 11 | 14 | 54.8% |
Compared with the control group, P < 0.05.
Comparison of clinical efficacy of neurological deficit scores between the two groups.
| Group | The number of cases | Heal | Effectual | Have the effect | Nullification | Effective rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental group | 31 | 4 | 5 | 17 | 5 | 83.8% |
| Control group | 31 | 4 | 2 | 12 | 13 | 58.1% |
Compared with the control group P < 0.05.
Figure 5Comparison of TCM symptom scores between the two groups before and after treatment. Compared with before treatment, P < 0.05.
Figure 6Comparison of neurological deficit scores between the two groups. Compared with before treatment, P < 0.05.
Figure 7Comparison of ADL scores between the two groups of patients. Compared with before treatment, P < 0.05.