| Literature DB >> 35884664 |
Yucong Meng1,2, Haoran Wang1,2, Chuanfu Wu1,2, Xiaoyu Liu1,2, Linhao Qu1,2, Yonghong Shi1,2.
Abstract
Intravenous thrombolysis is the most commonly used drug therapy for patients with acute ischemic stroke, which is often accompanied by complications of intracerebral hemorrhage transformation (HT). This study proposed to build a reliable model for pretreatment prediction of HT. Specifically, 5400 radiomics features were extracted from 20 regions of interest (ROIs) of multiparametric MRI images of 71 patients. Furthermore, a minimal set of all-relevant features were selected by LASSO from all ROIs and used to build a radiomics model through the random forest (RF). To explore the significance of normal ROIs, we built a model only based on abnormal ROIs. In addition, a model combining clinical factors and radiomics features was further built. Finally, the models were tested on an independent validation cohort. The radiomics model with 14 All-ROIs features achieved pretreatment prediction of HT (AUC = 0.871, accuracy = 0.848), which significantly outperformed the model with only 14 Abnormal-ROIs features (AUC = 0.831, accuracy = 0.818). Besides, combining clinical factors with radiomics features further benefited the prediction performance (AUC = 0.911, accuracy = 0.894). So, we think that the combined model can greatly assist doctors in diagnosis. Furthermore, we find that even if there were no lesions in the normal ROIs, they also provide characteristic information for the prediction of HT.Entities:
Keywords: acute ischemic stroke; hemorrhagic transformation; machine learning; radiomics
Year: 2022 PMID: 35884664 PMCID: PMC9313447 DOI: 10.3390/brainsci12070858
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Brain Sci ISSN: 2076-3425
Figure 1Flowchart of exclusion and inclusion of patients in our study.
Clinical information and characteristics in the HT and No-HT groups of patients.
| Clinical Characteristics | HT ( | No-HT ( | AUC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, median (Range) | 64 (41–83) | 64 (40–85) | 0.597 | 0.524 |
| Gender | 0.404 | 0.540 | ||
| Male | 7 (63.6%) | 44 (73.3%) | ||
| Female | 4 (36.4%) | 16 (26.7%) | ||
| Medical history | ||||
| Hypertension | 7 (63.6%) | 47 (78.3%) | 0.286 | 0.565 |
| Hyperlipidemia | 2 (18.2%) | 9 (15.0%) | 0.542 | 0.516 |
| Diabetes | 4 (36.4%) | 13 (21.7%) | 0.245 | 0.579 |
| Atrial fibrillation | 2 (18.2%) | 3 (5.0%) | 0.169 | 0.566 |
| Leukoaraiosis | 7 (63.6%) | 40 (66.7%) | 0.549 | 0.535 |
| Coronary | 2 (18.2%) | 3 (13.3%) | 0.485 | 0.524 |
| Infarct location | ||||
| A | 1 (9.1%) | 6 (10.0%) | 0.705 | 0.505 |
| M1 | 6 (54.5%) | 32 (53.3%) | 0.602 | 0.506 |
| M2 | 4 (36.4%) | 35 (58.3%) | 0.017 | 0.610 |
| P | 1 (9.1%) | 6 (10.0%) | 0.650 | 0.504 |
| Clinical score | ||||
| SVS_1 | 11 (100.0%) | 37 (61.7%) | 0.009 | 0.692 |
| SVS_2 | 3 (27.3%) | 22 (36.7%) | 0.408 | 0.547 |
| mTICI_2 | 5 (45.5%) | 28 (46.7%) | 0.155 | 0.539 |
| Recanalization state | 0.169 | 0.511 | ||
| yes | 5 (45.5%) | 26 (43.3%) | ||
| no | 6 (54.5%) | 34 (56.7%) |
Note: Data are presented as n (%). A = anterior cerebral; M1, M2 = middle cerebral artery; p = posterior cerebral artery; SVS_1 = susceptibility vessel sign at initial examination; SVS_2 = susceptibility vessel sign at re-examination; mTICI_2 = modified treatment in cerebral ischemia score at re-examination.
Figure 2Multiparametric MRI images (ADC from DWI, and CBF, CBV, MTT and TTP images from PWI image).
Figure 3The framework of our method.
Figure 4The process of the ROIs segmentation.
A summary of the high-throughput radiomics features extracted.
| Feature Classes | Feature Names |
|---|---|
| First-order Features | 10Percentile, 90Percentile, Energy, Entropy, Interquartile Range, Kurtosis, Maximum, Mean Absolute Deviation, Mean, Median, Minimum, Range, Robust Mean Absolute Deviation, Root Mean Squared, Skewness, Total Energy, Uniformity, Variance |
| Geometry Features | Elongation, Flatness, Least Axis Length, Major Axis Length, Maximum2DDiameterColumn, Maximum2DDiameterRow, Maximum2DDiameterSlice, Maximum3DDiameter, Mesh Volume, Minor Axis Length, Sphericity, Surface Area, Surface Volume Ratio, Voxel Volume |
| Texture Features | Autocorrela, Joint Average, Cluster Prominence, Cluster Shade, Cluster Tendency, Contrast, Correlation, Difference Average, Difference Entropy, Difference Variance, Joint Energy, Joint Entropy, Imc1, Imc2, Idm, Idmn, Id, Idn, Inverse Variance, Maximum Probability, Sum Entropy, Sum Squares |
Figure 5The process of data split and model training.
Figure 6Features extracted from all ROIs. The naming format of features is: Categories of MRI images_Name of ROI_Categories of ROI_Name of feature. The feature naming method in the following feature selection diagram is the same as this.
Figure 7Features extracted from the abnormal ROIs.
Figure 8Extracted fusion features.
Classification results of all prediction models.
| Models | AUC | ACC | SEN | SPEC | F1 Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical model | 0.556 ± 0.045 | 0.545 ± 0.064 | 0.333 ± 0.471 | 0.556 ± 0.045 | 0.067 ± 0.094 |
| Radiomics model | |||||
| Abnormal ROIs | 0.831 ± 0.006 | 0.818 ± 0.000 | 0.600 ± 0.000 | 0.882 ± 0.000 | 0.600 ± 0.000 |
| All ROIs | 0.871 ± 0.019 | 0.848 ± 0.021 | 0.733 ± 0.094 | 0.882 ± 0.048 | 0.687 ± 0.029 |
| Combined model | 0.911 ± 0.009 | 0.894 ± 0.021 | 0.810 ± 0.067 | 0.933 ± 0.054 | 0.830 ± 0.023 |
Figure 9Illustration of the ROC curves based on Abnormal-ROIs model (a), All-ROIs model (b) and Combined model (c), respectively.
Figure 10Features extracted from 5 single-sequence images.
Figure 11Analysis of features obtained from single-sequence images.
Classification results of models based on single-sequence images.
| Sequence | AUC | ACC | SEN | SPEC | F1 Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ADC (6) | 0.831 ± 0.015 | 0.848 ± 0.021 | 0.600 ± 0.000 | 0.922 ± 0.028 | 0.644 ± 0.031 |
| CBF (9) | 0.769 ± 0.024 | 0.848 ± 0.021 | 0.533 ± 0.094 | 0.941 ± 0.000 | 0.611 ± 0.079 |
| CBV (14) | 0.733 ± 0.011 | 0.773 ± 0.000 | 0.000 ± 0.000 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | 0.000 ± 0.000 |
| MTT (7) | 0.694 ± 0.017 | 0.621 ± 0.021 | 0.933 ± 0.094 | 0.529 ± 0.000 | 0.527 ± 0.040 |
| TTP (9) | 0.780 ± 0.024 | 0.788 ± 0.021 | 0.667 ± 0.094 | 0.824 ± 0.048 | 0.587 ± 0.030 |
Classification accuracy of models with different number of features.
| Number_Features | AUC | ACC | SEN | SPEC | F1 Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 0.765 ± 0.017 | 0.712 ± 0.057 | 0.667 ± 0.249 | 0.725 ± 0.139 | 0.500 ± 0.071 |
| 6 | 0.745 ± 0.006 | 0.712 ± 0.113 | 0.733 ± 0.249 | 0.706 ± 0.220 | 0.544 ± 0.020 |
| 7 | 0.784 ± 0.015 | 0.773 ± 0.098 | 0.467 ± 0.249 | 0.863 ± 0.194 | 0.468 ± 0.100 |
| 8 | 0.800 ± 0.010 | 0.818 ± 0.037 | 0.467 ± 0.094 | 0.922 ± 0.055 | 0.539 ± 0.068 |
| 9 | 0.831 ± 0.006 | 0.788 ± 0.021 | 0.800 ± 0.000 | 0.784 ± 0.028 | 0.632 ± 0.024 |
| 10 | 0.843 ± 0.006 | 0.818 ± 0.037 | 0.600 ± 0.163 | 0.882 ± 0.083 | 0.594 ± 0.070 |
| 11 | 0.847 ± 0.017 | 0.773 ± 0.037 | 0.600 ± 0.000 | 0.824 ± 0.048 | 0.548 ± 0.041 |
| 12 | 0.835 ± 0.017 | 0.758 ± 0.021 | 0.800 ± 0.000 | 0.745 ± 0.028 | 0.601 ± 0.021 |
| 13 | 0.859 ± 0.010 | 0.848 ± 0.021 | 0.733 ± 0.094 | 0.882 ± 0.000 | 0.685 ± 0.060 |
| 14 | 0.871 ± 0.019 | 0.848 ± 0.021 | 0.733 ± 0.094 | 0.882 ± 0.048 | 0.687 ± 0.029 |
| 15 | 0.859 ± 0.025 | 0.818 ± 0.037 | 0.667 ± 0.094 | 0.863 ± 0.055 | 0.626 ± 0.057 |
| 16 | 0.863 ± 0.015 | 0.803 ± 0.021 | 0.800 ± 0.163 | 0.804 ± 0.073 | 0.644 ± 0.031 |
| 17 | 0.859 ± 0.000 | 0.803 ± 0.021 | 0.667 ± 0.094 | 0.843 ± 0.028 | 0.604 ± 0.050 |
| 18 | 0.812 ± 0.000 | 0.788 ± 0.021 | 0.667 ± 0.094 | 0.824 ± 0.000 | 0.586 ± 0.057 |
| 19 | 0.847 ± 0.029 | 0.773 ± 0.037 | 0.800 ± 0.163 | 0.765 ± 0.083 | 0.612 ± 0.050 |
| 20 | 0.851 ± 0.006 | 0.712 ± 0.021 | 0.867 ± 0.094 | 0.667 ± 0.028 | 0.577 ± 0.038 |