학술논문

Impact of the reperfusion status for predicting the final stroke infarct using deep learning
Document Type
article
Source
NeuroImage: Clinical, Vol 29, Iss , Pp 102548- (2021)
Subject
Stroke
Prediction
Convolutional neural network
Magnetic resonance imaging
Reperfusion status
Computer applications to medicine. Medical informatics
R858-859.7
Neurology. Diseases of the nervous system
RC346-429
Language
English
ISSN
2213-1582
Abstract
Background: Predictive maps of the final infarct may help therapeutic decisions in acute ischemic stroke patients. Our objectives were to assess whether integrating the reperfusion status into deep learning models would improve their performance, and to compare them to current clinical prediction methods. Methods: We trained and tested convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to predict the final infarct in acute ischemic stroke patients treated by thrombectomy in our center. When training the CNNs, non-reperfused patients from a non-thrombectomized cohort were added to the training set to increase the size of this group. Baseline diffusion and perfusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were used as inputs, and the lesion segmented on day-6 MRI served as the ground truth for the final infarct. The cohort was dichotomized into two subsets, reperfused and non-reperfused patients, from which reperfusion status specific CNNs were developed and compared to one another, and to the clinically-used perfusion-diffusion mismatch model. Evaluation metrics included the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), precision, recall, volumetric similarity, Hausdorff distance and area-under-the-curve (AUC). Results: We analyzed 109 patients, including 35 without reperfusion. The highest DSC were achieved in both reperfused and non-reperfused patients (DSC = 0.44 ± 0.25 and 0.47 ± 0.17, respectively) when using the corresponding reperfusion status-specific CNN. CNN-based models achieved higher DSC and AUC values compared to those of perfusion-diffusion mismatch models (reperfused patients: AUC = 0.87 ± 0.13 vs 0.79 ± 0.17, P