Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34476183›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2021

Ensemble learning accurately predicts the potential benefits of thrombolytic therapy in acute ischemic stroke.

Zhihong Chen, Qingqing Li, Renyuan Li, Han Zhao, Zhaoqing Li, Ying Zhou, Renxiu Bian, Xinyu Jin, Min Lou, Ruiliang Bai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

10 authors.

Zhihong ChenInstitute of Information Science and Electronic Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Qingqing LiDepartment of Neurology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Renyuan LiDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, The Affiliated Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Han ZhaoInstitute of Information Science and Electronic Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Zhaoqing LiInterdisciplinary Institute of Neuroscience and Technology, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Ying ZhouDepartment of Neurology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Renxiu BianDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, The Affiliated Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Xinyu JinInstitute of Information Science and Electronic Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Min LouDepartment of Neurology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Ruiliang BaiDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, The Affiliated Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFinding methods to accurately predict the final infarct volumes for acute ischemic stroke patients with full or no recanalization would significantly help to evaluate the potential benefits of thrombolytic therapy. We proposed such a method by constructing a model of ensemble deep learning and machine learning using diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) only.

methodsThe proposed prediction model (named AUNet) combines an adaptive linear ensemble model (ALEM) of machine learning and a deep U-Net network with an accelerated non-local module (U-NL-Net) to learn voxel-wise and spatial features, respectively. Of 40 patients with acute ischemic stroke who received thrombolytic therapy, 17 were fully recanalized, 14 were not recanalized, and nine were partially recanalized. The AUNet was separately trained for full recanalization conditions (AUNetR) and no recanalization (AUNetN) as the best and worst outcomes of thrombolysis, respectively.

resultsAUNet performed significantly better in predicting the final infarct volumes in both the recanalization and non-recanalization conditions [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) =0.898±0.022, recanalization; AUC =0.875±0.036, non-recanalization: Matthew's correlation coefficient (MCC) =0.863±0.033, recanalization; MCC =0.851±0.025, non-recanalization] than the fixed-thresholding method (AUC =0.776±0.021, P<0.0001, recanalization; AUC =0.692±0.023, P<0.0001, non-recanalization: MCC =0.742±0.035, recanalization; MCC =0.671±0.024, non-recanalization), the logistic regression method (AUC =0.797±0.023, P<0.003, recanalization; AUC =0.751±0.030, P<0.003, non-recanalization: MCC =0.762±0.035, recanalization; MCC =0.730±0.031, non-recanalization), and a recently developed convolutional neural network (AUC =0.814±0.013, P<0.003, recanalization; AUC =0.781±0.027, P<0.003, non-recanalization: MCC =792±0.022, recanalization; MCC =0.758±0.016, non-recanalization). The potential benefit of thrombolysis calculated from AUNetR and AUNetN showed large individual differences (from 12.81% to 239.73%).

conclusionsAUNet improved predictive accuracy over current state-of-the-art methods. More importantly, the accurate prediction of infarct volumes under different recanalization conditions may provide benefitial information for physicians in selecting suitable patients for thrombolytic therapy.

Indexed as

computer-aided diagnosisconvolutional neural networksensemble learningInfarct volume predictionrecanalizationthrombolytic therapy

Identifiers

PMID34476183
PMCPMC8339640

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.