Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35432171›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2022

Combination of Radiological and Clinical Baseline Data for Outcome Prediction of Patients With an Acute Ischemic Stroke.

Lucas A Ramos, Hendrikus van Os, Adam Hilbert, Silvia D Olabarriaga, Aad van der Lugt, Yvo B W E M Roos, Wim H van Zwam, Marianne A A van Walderveen, Marielle Ernst, Aeiko H Zwinderman and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Application of radiomics in ischemic stroke.The Journal of international medical research · 2024
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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

14 authors.

Lucas A RamosDepartment of Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Hendrikus van OsDepartment of Neurology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.
Adam HilbertDepartment of Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Silvia D OlabarriagaDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Aad van der LugtDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center (MC) - University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Yvo B W E M RoosDepartment of Neurology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Wim H van ZwamDepartment of Radiology, Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Marianne A A van WalderveenDepartment of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.
Marielle ErnstCentre for Radiology and Endoscopy, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Aeiko H ZwindermanDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Gustav J StrijkersDepartment of Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Charles B L M MajoieDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Marieke J H WermerDepartment of Neurology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.
Henk A MarqueringDepartment of Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Accurate prediction of clinical outcome is of utmost importance for choices regarding the endovascular treatment (EVT) of acute stroke. Recent studies on the prediction modeling for stroke focused mostly on clinical characteristics and radiological scores available at baseline. Radiological images are composed of millions of voxels, and a lot of information can be lost when representing this information by a single value. Therefore, in this study we aimed at developing prediction models that take into account the whole imaging data combined with clinical data available at baseline. Methods: We included 3,279 patients from the MR CLEAN Registry; a prospective, observational, multicenter registry of patients with ischemic stroke treated with EVT. We developed two approaches to combine the imaging data with the clinical data. The first approach was based on radiomics features, extracted from 70 atlas regions combined with the clinical data to train machine learning models. For the second approach, we trained 3D deep learning models using the whole images and the clinical data. Models trained with the clinical data only were compared with models trained with the combination of clinical and image data. Finally, we explored feature importance plots for the best models and identified many known variables and image features/brain regions that were relevant in the model decision process. Results: From 3,279 patients included, 1,241 (37%) patients had a good functional outcome [modified Rankin Scale (mRS) ≤ 2] and 1,954 (60%) patients had good reperfusion [modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (eTICI) ≥ 2b]. There was no significant improvement by combining the image data to the clinical data for mRS prediction [mean area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) of 0.81 vs. 0.80] above using the clinical data only, regardless of the approach used. Regarding predicting reperfusion, there was a significant improvement when image and clinical features were combined (mean AUC of 0.54 vs. 0.61), with the highest AUC obtained by the deep learning approach. Conclusions: The combination of radiomics and deep learning image features with clinical data significantly improved the prediction of good reperfusion. The visualization of prediction feature importance showed both known and novel clinical and imaging features with predictive values.

Indexed as

data combinationdeep learningischemia strokeoutcome predictionradiomics

Identifiers

PMID35432171
PMCPMC9010547

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.