Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36147044›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2022

Machine learning to predict in-stent stenosis after Pipeline embolization device placement.

Dachao Wei, Dingwei Deng, Siming Gui, Wei You, Junqiang Feng, Xiangyu Meng, Xiheng Chen, Jian Lv, Yudi Tang, Ting Chen and 1 more

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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Systematic Review of Radiomics and Artificial Intelligence in Intracranial Aneurysm Management.Journal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Dachao WeiDepartment of Interventional Neuroradiology, Beijing Neurosurgical Institute, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Dingwei DengDepartment of Interventional Neuroradiology, Beijing Neurosurgical Institute, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Siming GuiDepartment of Interventional Neuroradiology, Beijing Neurosurgical Institute, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Wei YouDepartment of Interventional Neuroradiology, Beijing Neurosurgical Institute, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Junqiang FengDepartment of Interventional Neuroradiology, Beijing Neurosurgical Institute, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Xiangyu MengDepartment of Interventional Neuroradiology, Beijing Neurosurgical Institute, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Xiheng ChenDepartment of Interventional Neuroradiology, Beijing Neurosurgical Institute, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Jian LvDepartment of Interventional Neuroradiology, Beijing Neurosurgical Institute, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Yudi TangDepartment of Interventional Neuroradiology, Beijing Neurosurgical Institute, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Ting ChenSchool of Biomedical Engineering, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Peng LiuDepartment of Interventional Neuroradiology, Beijing Neurosurgical Institute, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Capital Medical University · CNBeijing Institute of Neurosurgery · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The Pipeline embolization device (PED) is a flow diverter used to treat intracranial aneurysms. In-stent stenosis (ISS) is a common complication of PED placement that can affect long-term outcome. This study aimed to establish a feasible, effective, and reliable model to predict ISS using machine learning methodology. Methods: We retrospectively examined clinical, laboratory, and imaging data obtained from 435 patients with intracranial aneurysms who underwent PED placement in our center. Aneurysm morphological measurements were manually measured on pre- and posttreatment imaging studies by three experienced neurointerventionalists. ISS was defined as stenosis rate >50% within the PED. We compared the performance of five machine learning algorithms (elastic net (ENT), support vector machine, Xgboost, Gaussian Naïve Bayes, and random forest) in predicting ISS. Shapley additive explanation was applied to provide an explanation for the predictions. Results: A total of 69 ISS cases (15.2%) were identified. Six predictors of ISS (age, obesity, balloon angioplasty, internal carotid artery location, neck ratio, and coefficient of variation of red cell volume distribution width) were identified. The ENT model had the best predictive performance with a mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.709 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.697-0.721), mean sensitivity of 77.9% (95% CI, 75.1-80.6%), and mean specificity of 63.4% (95% CI, 60.8-65.9%) in Monte Carlo cross-validation. Shapley additive explanation analysis showed that internal carotid artery location was the most important predictor of ISS. Conclusion: Our machine learning model can predict ISS after PED placement for treatment of intracranial aneurysms and has the potential to improve patient outcomes.

Indexed as

complicationendovascular treatmentflow diverterintracranial aneurysmmachine learningPipeline embolization device

Identifiers

PMID36147044
PMCPMC9486156
OpenAlexW4294739305

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.