Cargando…
Prediction of Clinical Outcomes in Acute Ischaemic Stroke Patients: A Comparative Study
Background: Clinical stroke rehabilitation decision making relies on multi-modal data, including imaging and other clinical assessments. However, most previously described methods for predicting long-term stroke outcomes do not make use of the full multi-modal data available. The aim of this work wa...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8134662/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34025567 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2021.663899 |
_version_ | 1783695213361889280 |
---|---|
author | Rajashekar, Deepthi Hill, Michael D. Demchuk, Andrew M. Goyal, Mayank Fiehler, Jens Forkert, Nils D. |
author_facet | Rajashekar, Deepthi Hill, Michael D. Demchuk, Andrew M. Goyal, Mayank Fiehler, Jens Forkert, Nils D. |
author_sort | Rajashekar, Deepthi |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background: Clinical stroke rehabilitation decision making relies on multi-modal data, including imaging and other clinical assessments. However, most previously described methods for predicting long-term stroke outcomes do not make use of the full multi-modal data available. The aim of this work was to develop and evaluate the benefit of nested regression models that utilise clinical assessments as well as image-based biomarkers to model 30-day NIHSS. Method: 221 subjects were pooled from two prospective trials with follow-up MRI or CT scans, and NIHSS assessed at baseline, as well as 48-hours and 30 days after symptom onset. Three prediction models for 30-day NIHSS were developed using a support vector regression model: one clinical model based on modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors (M(CLINICAL)) and two nested regression models that aggregate clinical and image-based features that differed with respect to the method used for selection of important brain regions for the modelling task. The first model used the widely accepted RreliefF (M(RELIEF)) machine learning method for this purpose, while the second model employed a lesion-symptom mapping technique (M(LSM)) often used in neuroscience to investigate structure-function relationships and identify eloquent regions in the brain. Results: The two nested models achieved a similar performance while considerably outperforming the clinical model. However, M(RELIEF) required fewer brain regions and achieved a lower mean absolute error than M(LSM) while being less computationally expensive. Conclusion: Aggregating clinical and imaging information leads to considerably better outcome prediction models. While lesion-symptom mapping is a useful tool to investigate structure-function relationships of the brain, it does not lead to better outcome predictions compared to a simple data-driven feature selection approach, which is less computationally expensive and easier to implement. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8134662 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81346622021-05-21 Prediction of Clinical Outcomes in Acute Ischaemic Stroke Patients: A Comparative Study Rajashekar, Deepthi Hill, Michael D. Demchuk, Andrew M. Goyal, Mayank Fiehler, Jens Forkert, Nils D. Front Neurol Neurology Background: Clinical stroke rehabilitation decision making relies on multi-modal data, including imaging and other clinical assessments. However, most previously described methods for predicting long-term stroke outcomes do not make use of the full multi-modal data available. The aim of this work was to develop and evaluate the benefit of nested regression models that utilise clinical assessments as well as image-based biomarkers to model 30-day NIHSS. Method: 221 subjects were pooled from two prospective trials with follow-up MRI or CT scans, and NIHSS assessed at baseline, as well as 48-hours and 30 days after symptom onset. Three prediction models for 30-day NIHSS were developed using a support vector regression model: one clinical model based on modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors (M(CLINICAL)) and two nested regression models that aggregate clinical and image-based features that differed with respect to the method used for selection of important brain regions for the modelling task. The first model used the widely accepted RreliefF (M(RELIEF)) machine learning method for this purpose, while the second model employed a lesion-symptom mapping technique (M(LSM)) often used in neuroscience to investigate structure-function relationships and identify eloquent regions in the brain. Results: The two nested models achieved a similar performance while considerably outperforming the clinical model. However, M(RELIEF) required fewer brain regions and achieved a lower mean absolute error than M(LSM) while being less computationally expensive. Conclusion: Aggregating clinical and imaging information leads to considerably better outcome prediction models. While lesion-symptom mapping is a useful tool to investigate structure-function relationships of the brain, it does not lead to better outcome predictions compared to a simple data-driven feature selection approach, which is less computationally expensive and easier to implement. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-05-06 /pmc/articles/PMC8134662/ /pubmed/34025567 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2021.663899 Text en Copyright © 2021 Rajashekar, Hill, Demchuk, Goyal, Fiehler and Forkert. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Neurology Rajashekar, Deepthi Hill, Michael D. Demchuk, Andrew M. Goyal, Mayank Fiehler, Jens Forkert, Nils D. Prediction of Clinical Outcomes in Acute Ischaemic Stroke Patients: A Comparative Study |
title | Prediction of Clinical Outcomes in Acute Ischaemic Stroke Patients: A Comparative Study |
title_full | Prediction of Clinical Outcomes in Acute Ischaemic Stroke Patients: A Comparative Study |
title_fullStr | Prediction of Clinical Outcomes in Acute Ischaemic Stroke Patients: A Comparative Study |
title_full_unstemmed | Prediction of Clinical Outcomes in Acute Ischaemic Stroke Patients: A Comparative Study |
title_short | Prediction of Clinical Outcomes in Acute Ischaemic Stroke Patients: A Comparative Study |
title_sort | prediction of clinical outcomes in acute ischaemic stroke patients: a comparative study |
topic | Neurology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8134662/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34025567 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2021.663899 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT rajashekardeepthi predictionofclinicaloutcomesinacuteischaemicstrokepatientsacomparativestudy AT hillmichaeld predictionofclinicaloutcomesinacuteischaemicstrokepatientsacomparativestudy AT demchukandrewm predictionofclinicaloutcomesinacuteischaemicstrokepatientsacomparativestudy AT goyalmayank predictionofclinicaloutcomesinacuteischaemicstrokepatientsacomparativestudy AT fiehlerjens predictionofclinicaloutcomesinacuteischaemicstrokepatientsacomparativestudy AT forkertnilsd predictionofclinicaloutcomesinacuteischaemicstrokepatientsacomparativestudy |