Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31519923›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Technical considerations of multi-parametric tissue outcome prediction methods in acute ischemic stroke patients.

Anthony J Winder, Susanne Siemonsen, Fabian Flottmann, Götz Thomalla, Jens Fiehler, Nils D Forkert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Tissue outcome prediction in hyperacute ischemic stroke: Comparison of machine learning models.Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

6 authors.

Anthony J WinderDepartment of Radiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Susanne SiemonsenDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Fabian FlottmannDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8358-8089
Götz ThomallaDepartment of Neurology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Jens FiehlerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Nils D ForkertDepartment of Radiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada. nils.forkert@ucalgary.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2556-3224

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Decisions regarding acute stroke treatment rely heavily on imaging, but interpretation can be difficult for physicians. Machine learning methods can assist clinicians by providing tissue outcome predictions for different treatment approaches based on acute multi-parametric imaging. To produce such clinically viable machine learning models, factors such as classifier choice, data normalization, and data balancing must be considered. This study gives comprehensive consideration to these factors by comparing the agreement of voxel-based tissue outcome predictions using acute imaging and clinical parameters with manual lesion segmentations derived from follow-up imaging. This study considers random decision forest, generalized linear model, and k-nearest-neighbor machine learning classifiers in conjunction with three data normalization approaches (non-normalized, relative to contralateral hemisphere, and relative to contralateral VOI), and two data balancing strategies (full dataset and stratified subsampling). These classifier settings were evaluated based on 90 MRI datasets from acute ischemic stroke patients. Distinction was made between patients recanalized using intraarterial and intravenous methods, as well as those without successful recanalization. For primary quantitative comparison, the Dice metric was computed for each voxel-based tissue outcome prediction and its corresponding follow-up lesion segmentation. It was found that the random forest classifier outperformed the generalized linear model and the k-nearest-neighbor classifier, that normalization did not improve the Dice score of the lesion outcome predictions, and that the models generated lesion outcome predictions with higher Dice scores when trained with balanced datasets. No significant difference was found between the treatment groups (intraarterial vs intravenous) regarding the Dice score of the tissue outcome predictions.

Indexed as

Machine LearningBrain IschemiaHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingModels, BiologicalPrognosisRetrospective StudiesStroke

Identifiers

PMID31519923
PMCPMC6744509

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.