Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37485663›Full record

Trial reportStroke2023

Functional Outcome Prediction in Acute Ischemic Stroke Using a Fused Imaging and Clinical Deep Learning Model.

Yongkai Liu, Yannan Yu, Jiahong Ouyang, Bin Jiang, Guang Yang, Sophie Ostmeier, Max Wintermark, Patrik Michel, David S Liebeskind, Maarten G Lansberg and 2 more

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Stroke, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Multimodal model predicts screw loosening at user-specified postoperative time points after single-level lumbar interbody fusion.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

12 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Yongkai LiuDepartment of Radiology (Y.L., Y.Y., J.O., B.J., S.O., G.Z.).ORCID 0000-0003-4478-4006
Yannan YuDepartment of Radiology (Y.L., Y.Y., J.O., B.J., S.O., G.Z.).ORCID 0000-0002-1718-6505
Jiahong OuyangDepartment of Radiology (Y.L., Y.Y., J.O., B.J., S.O., G.Z.).ORCID 0000-0002-0434-5757
Bin JiangDepartment of Radiology (Y.L., Y.Y., J.O., B.J., S.O., G.Z.).ORCID 0000-0002-8507-0459
Guang YangNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, United Kingdom (G.Y.).ORCID 0000-0001-7344-7733
Sophie OstmeierDepartment of Radiology (Y.L., Y.Y., J.O., B.J., S.O., G.Z.).ORCID 0000-0003-3097-7042
Max WintermarkDepartment of Neuroradiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Center, Houston (M.W.).ORCID 0000-0002-6726-3951
Patrik MichelNeurology Service, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland (P.M.).ORCID 0000-0003-4954-7579
David S LiebeskindDepartment of Neurology, UCLA, CA (D.S.L.).ORCID 0000-0002-5109-8736
Maarten G LansbergDepartment of Neurology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (M.G.L., G.W.A.).ORCID 0000-0002-3545-6927
Gregory W AlbersDepartment of Neurology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (M.G.L., G.W.A.).ORCID 0000-0003-0263-4632
Greg ZaharchukDepartment of Radiology (Y.L., Y.Y., J.O., B.J., S.O., G.Z.).ORCID 0000-0001-5781-8848
Stanford University · USLung Institute · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUCLA Health · USUniversity of Lausanne · CH

Funding

Quantifying Collateral Perfusion in Cerebrovascular DiseaseR01NS066506 · NINDS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI ZAHARCHUK, GREGORY GEORGE · 2009 to 2017
$4.9M
Predicting Tissue and Functional Outcome in Acute StrokeR01NS130172 · NINDS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI Gregory George Zaharchuk · 2023 to 2026
$2.4M
Medical Research Council MC_PC_21013Medical Research Council MR/V023799/1NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS066506NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS130172
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPredicting long-term clinical outcome based on the early acute ischemic stroke information is valuable for prognostication, resource management, clinical trials, and patient expectations. Current methods require subjective decisions about which imaging features to assess and may require time-consuming postprocessing. This study's goal was to predict ordinal 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score in acute ischemic stroke patients by fusing a Deep Learning model of diffusion-weighted imaging images and clinical information from the acute period.

methodsA total of 640 acute ischemic stroke patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging within 1 to 7 days poststroke and had 90-day mRS follow-up data were randomly divided into 70% (n=448) for model training, 15% (n=96) for validation, and 15% (n=96) for internal testing. Additionally, external testing on a cohort from Lausanne University Hospital (n=280) was performed to further evaluate model generalization. Accuracy for ordinal mRS, accuracy within ±1 mRS category, mean absolute prediction error, and determination of unfavorable outcome (mRS score >2) were evaluated for clinical only, imaging only, and 2 fused clinical-imaging models.

resultsThe fused models demonstrated superior performance in predicting ordinal mRS score and unfavorable outcome in both internal and external test cohorts when compared with the clinical and imaging models. For the internal test cohort, the top fused model had the highest area under the curve of 0.92 for unfavorable outcome prediction and the lowest mean absolute error (0.96 [95% CI, 0.77-1.16]), with the highest proportion of mRS score predictions within ±1 category (79% [95% CI, 71%-88%]). On the external Lausanne University Hospital cohort, the best fused model had an area under the curve of 0.90 for unfavorable outcome prediction and outperformed other models with an mean absolute error of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.79-1.01), and the highest percentage of mRS score predictions within ±1 category (83% [95% CI, 78%-87%]).

conclusionsA Deep Learning-based imaging model fused with clinical variables can be used to predict 90-day stroke outcome with reduced subjectivity and user burden.

Indexed as

Deep LearningIschemic StrokeStrokeHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingPrognosisgoalinfarctionischemic strokemagnetic resonance imagingquality of life

Identifiers

PMID37485663
PMCPMC11229702
OpenAlexW4385186010

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.