Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31485987›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2020

Comparison of statistical learning approaches for cerebral aneurysm rupture assessment.

Felicitas J Detmer, Daniel Lückehe, Fernando Mut, Martin Slawski, Sven Hirsch, Philippe Bijlenga, Gabriele von Voigt, Juan R Cebral

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05526352 (@neurIST), which is not on this map. Cited by 28 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05526352 recruitingnot on this map

@neurIST : Informatique biomédicale intégrée Pour la Gestion Des anévrismes cérébraux

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorUniversity Hospital, GenevaRan2015 to 2040Enrolled20,000ConditionsIntracranial Aneurysm
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Systematic Review of Radiomics and Artificial Intelligence in Intracranial Aneurysm Management.Journal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging
    Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Felicitas J DetmerBioengineering Department, Volgenau School of Engineering, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, VA, 22030, USA. fdetmer@gmu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0434-0355
Daniel LückeheComputational Health Informatics, Leibniz University, Hannover, Germany.
Fernando MutBioengineering Department, Volgenau School of Engineering, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, VA, 22030, USA.
Martin SlawskiStatistics Department, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA.
Sven HirschInstitute of Applied Simulation, ZHAW University of Applied Sciences, Wädenswil, Switzerland.
Philippe BijlengaNeurosurgery, Clinical Neurosciences Department, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Gabriele von VoigtComputational Health Informatics, Leibniz University, Hannover, Germany.
Juan R CebralBioengineering Department, Volgenau School of Engineering, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, VA, 22030, USA.

Funding

Swiss National Science Foundation MRD-AneuX 2014-261
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIncidental aneurysms pose a challenge to physicians who need to decide whether or not to treat them. A statistical model could potentially support such treatment decisions. The aim of this study was to compare a previously developed aneurysm rupture logistic regression probability model (LRM) to other machine learning (ML) classifiers for discrimination of aneurysm rupture status.

methodsHemodynamic, morphological, and patient-related information of 1631 cerebral aneurysms characterized by computational fluid dynamics simulations were used to train support vector machines (SVMs) with linear and RBF kernel (RBF-SVM), k-nearest neighbors (kNN), decision tree, random forest, and multilayer perceptron (MLP) neural network classifiers for predicting the aneurysm rupture status. The classifiers' accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were evaluated and compared to the LRM using 249 test cases obtained from two external cohorts. Additionally, important variables were determined based on the random forest and weights of the linear SVM.

resultsThe AUCs of the MLP, LRM, linear SVM, RBF-SVM, kNN, decision tree, and random forest were 0.83, 0.82, 0.80, 0.81, 0.76, 0.70, and 0.79, respectively. The accuracy ranged between 0.76 (decision tree,) and 0.79 (linear SVM, RBF-SVM, and MLP). Important variables for predicting the aneurysm rupture status included aneurysm location, the mean surface curvature, and maximum flow velocity.

conclusionThe performance of the LRM was overall comparable to that of the other ML classifiers, confirming its potential for aneurysm rupture assessment. To further improve the predictions, additional information, e.g., related to the aneurysm wall, might be needed.

Indexed as

Decision TreesModels, StatisticalSupport Vector MachineAneurysm, RupturedHemodynamicsHumansIntracranial AneurysmROC CurveCerebral aneurysmHemodynamicsMachine learningPredictionRisk factorsShape

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.