Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35645962›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2022

An Integrated Model Combining Machine Learning and Deep Learning Algorithms for Classification of Rupture Status of IAs.

Rong Chen, Xiao Mo, Zhenpeng Chen, Pujie Feng, Haiyun Li

Open access · goldAbstract 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 17 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  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. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rong ChenBeijing Key Laboratory of Fundamental Research on Biomechanics in Clinical Application, School of Biomedical Engineering, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Xiao MoBeijing Key Laboratory of Fundamental Research on Biomechanics in Clinical Application, School of Biomedical Engineering, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Zhenpeng ChenBeijing Key Laboratory of Fundamental Research on Biomechanics in Clinical Application, School of Biomedical Engineering, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Pujie FengBeijing Key Laboratory of Fundamental Research on Biomechanics in Clinical Application, School of Biomedical Engineering, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Haiyun LiBeijing Key Laboratory of Fundamental Research on Biomechanics in Clinical Application, School of Biomedical Engineering, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Capital Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The rupture risk assessment of intracranial aneurysms (IAs) is clinically relevant. How to accurately assess the rupture risk of IAs remains a challenge in clinical decision-making. Purpose: We aim to build an integrated model to improve the assessment of the rupture risk of IAs. Materials and Methods: A total of 148 (39 ruptured and 109 unruptured) IA subjects were retrospectively computed with computational fluid dynamics (CFDs), and the integrated models were proposed by combining machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) algorithms. ML algorithms that include random forest (RF), k-nearest neighbor (KNN), XGBoost (XGB), support vector machine (SVM), and LightGBM were, respectively, adopted to classify ruptured and unruptured IAs. A Pointnet DL algorithm was applied to extract hemodynamic cloud features from the hemodynamic clouds obtained from CFD. Morphological variables and hemodynamic parameters along with the extracted hemodynamic cloud features were acted as the inputs to the classification models. The classification results with and without hemodynamic cloud features are computed and compared. Results: Without consideration of hemodynamic cloud features, the classification accuracy of RF, KNN, XGB, SVM, and LightGBM was 0.824, 0.759, 0.839, 0.860, and 0.829, respectively, and the AUCs of them were 0.897, 0.584, 0.892, 0.925, and 0.890, respectively. With the consideration of hemodynamic cloud features, the accuracy successively increased to 0.908, 0.873, 0.900, 0.926, and 0.917. Meanwhile, the AUCs reached 0.952, 0.881, 0.950, 0.969, and 0.965 eventually. Adding consideration of hemodynamic cloud features, the SVM could perform best with the highest accuracy of 0.926 and AUC of 0.969, respectively. Conclusion: The integrated model combining ML and DL algorithms could improve the classification of IAs. Adding consideration of hemodynamic cloud features could bring more accurate classification, and hemodynamic cloud features were important for the discrimination of ruptured IAs.

Indexed as

deep learninghemodynamic cloudintracranial aneurysmmachine learningrupture risk

Identifiers

PMID35645962
PMCPMC9133352
OpenAlexW4280488671

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.