Cargando…
Postsurgical functional outcome prediction model using deep learning framework (Prediction One, Sony Network Communications Inc.) for hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage
BACKGROUND: Reliable prediction models of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) outcomes are needed for decision-making of the treatment. Statistically making such prediction models needs a large number of samples and time-consuming statistical analysis. Deep learning (DL), one of the artificial intelligen...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Scientific Scholar
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8168705/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34084630 http://dx.doi.org/10.25259/SNI_222_2021 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Reliable prediction models of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) outcomes are needed for decision-making of the treatment. Statistically making such prediction models needs a large number of samples and time-consuming statistical analysis. Deep learning (DL), one of the artificial intelligence, is attractive, but there were no reports on DL-based functional outcome prediction models for ICH outcomes after surgery. We herein made a functional outcome prediction model using DLframework, Prediction One (Sony Network Communications Inc., Tokyo, Japan), and compared it to original ICH score, ICH Grading Scale, and FUNC score. METHODS: We used 140 consecutive hypertensive ICH patients’ data in our hospital between 2012 and 2019. All patients were surgically treated. Modified Rankin Scale 0–3 at 6 months was defined as a favorable outcome. We randomly divided them into 100 patients training dataset and 40 patients validation dataset. Prediction One made the prediction model using the training dataset with 5-fold cross-validation. We calculated area under the curves (AUCs) regarding the outcome using the DL-based model, ICH score, ICH Grading Scale, and FUNC score. The AUCs were compared. RESULTS: The model made by Prediction One using 64 variables had AUC of 0.997 in the training dataset and that of 0.884 in the validation dataset. These AUCs were superior to those derived from ICH score, ICH Grading Scale, and FUNC score. CONCLUSION: We easily and quickly made prediction models using Prediction One, even with a small single-center dataset. The accuracy of the DL-based model was superior to those of previous statistically calculated models. |
---|