ArticleFrontiers in neurology2024
A simple and effective machine learning model for predicting the stability of intracranial aneurysms using CT angiography.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The roles of radiomics and deep learning for automatic detection, stability assessment, and rupture risk prediction in intracranial aneurysms: a systematic review.European journal of medical research · 2025Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence applied to development of predictive stability model for intracranial aneurysms.European journal of medical research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: It is vital to accurately and promptly distinguish unstable from stable intracranial aneurysms (IAs) to facilitate treatment optimization and avoid unnecessary treatment. The aim of this study is to develop a simple and effective predictive model for the clinical evaluation of the stability of IAs. Methods: In total, 1,053 patients with 1,239 IAs were randomly divided the dataset into training (70%) and internal validation (30%) datasets. One hundred and ninety seven patients with 229 IAs from another hospital were evaluated as an external validation dataset. The prediction models were developed using machine learning based on clinical information, manual parameters, and radiomic features. In addition, a simple model for predicting the stability of IAs was developed, and a nomogram was drawn for clinical use. Results: Fourteen machine learning models exhibited excellent classification performance. Logistic regression Model E (clinical information, manual parameters, and radiomic shape features) had the highest AUC of 0.963 (95% CI 0.943-0.980). Compared to manual parameters, radiomic features did not significantly improve the identification of unstable IAs. In the external validation dataset, the simplified model demonstrated excellent performance (AUC = 0.950) using only five manual parameters. Conclusion: Machine learning models have excellent potential in the classification of unstable IAs. The manual parameters from CTA images are sufficient for developing a simple and effective model for identifying unstable IAs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.