Neurology · 2016
Gray matter MRI differentiates neuromyelitis optica from multiple sclerosis using random forest.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Eshaghi Arman, Wottschel Viktor, Cortese Rosa, Calabrese Massimiliano, Sahraian Mohammad Ali, Thompson Alan J, Alexander Daniel C, Ciccarelli Olga
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: We tested whether brain gray matter (GM) imaging measures can differentiate between multiple sclerosis (MS) and neuromyelitis optica (NMO) using random-forest classification.
METHODS: Ninety participants (25 patients with MS, 30 patients with NMO, and 35 healthy controls [HCs]) were studied in Tehran, Iran, and 54 (24 patients with MS, 20 patients with NMO, and 10 HCs) in Padua, Italy. Participants underwent brain T1 and T2/fluid-attenuated inversion recovery MRI. Volume, thickness, and surface of 50 cortical GM regions and volumes of the deep GM nuclei were calculated and used to construct 3 random-forest models to classify patients as either NMO or MS, and separate each patient group from HCs. Clinical diagnosis was the gold standard against which the accuracy was calculated.
RESULTS: The classifier distinguished patients with MS, who showed greater atrophy especially in deep GM, from those with NMO with an average accuracy of 74% (sensitivity/specificity: 77/72; p < 0.01). When we used thalamic volume (the most discriminating GM measure) together with the white matter lesion volume, the accuracy of the classification of MS vs NMO was 80%. The classifications of MS vs HCs and NMO vs HCs achieved higher accuracies (92% and 88%).
CONCLUSIONS: GM imaging biomarkers, automatically obtained from clinical scans, can be used to distinguish NMO from MS, even in a 2-center setting, and may facilitate the differential diagnosis in clinical practice.
CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that GM imaging biomarkers can distinguish patients with NMO from those with MS.
METHODS: Ninety participants (25 patients with MS, 30 patients with NMO, and 35 healthy controls [HCs]) were studied in Tehran, Iran, and 54 (24 patients with MS, 20 patients with NMO, and 10 HCs) in Padua, Italy. Participants underwent brain T1 and T2/fluid-attenuated inversion recovery MRI. Volume, thickness, and surface of 50 cortical GM regions and volumes of the deep GM nuclei were calculated and used to construct 3 random-forest models to classify patients as either NMO or MS, and separate each patient group from HCs. Clinical diagnosis was the gold standard against which the accuracy was calculated.
RESULTS: The classifier distinguished patients with MS, who showed greater atrophy especially in deep GM, from those with NMO with an average accuracy of 74% (sensitivity/specificity: 77/72; p < 0.01). When we used thalamic volume (the most discriminating GM measure) together with the white matter lesion volume, the accuracy of the classification of MS vs NMO was 80%. The classifications of MS vs HCs and NMO vs HCs achieved higher accuracies (92% and 88%).
CONCLUSIONS: GM imaging biomarkers, automatically obtained from clinical scans, can be used to distinguish NMO from MS, even in a 2-center setting, and may facilitate the differential diagnosis in clinical practice.
CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that GM imaging biomarkers can distinguish patients with NMO from those with MS.