Neurocritical care · 2025
Predicting hematoma expansion after intracerebral hemorrhage: a comparison of clinician prediction with deep learning radiomics models.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание 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.
Yu Boyang, Melmed Kara R, Frontera Jennifer, Zhu Weicheng, Huang Haoxu, Qureshi Adnan I, Maggard Abigail, Steinhof Michael, Kuohn Lindsey, Kumar Arooshi, Berson Elisa R, Tran Anh T, Payabvash Seyedmehdi, Ironside Natasha, Brush Benjamin, Dehkharghani Seena, Razavian Narges, Ranganath Rajesh
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Early prediction of hematoma expansion (HE) following nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) may inform preemptive therapeutic interventions. We sought to identify how accurately machine learning (ML) radiomics models predict HE compared with expert clinicians using head computed tomography (HCT).
METHODS: We used data from 900 study participants with ICH enrolled in the Antihypertensive Treatment of Acute Cerebral Hemorrhage 2 Study. ML models were developed using baseline HCT images, as well as admission clinical data in a training cohort (n = 621), and their performance was evaluated in an independent test cohort (n = 279) to predict HE (defined as HE by 33% or > 6 mL at 24 h). We simultaneously surveyed expert clinicians and asked them to predict HE using the same initial HCT images and clinical data. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were compared between clinician predictions, ML models using radiomic data only (a random forest classifier and a deep learning imaging model) and ML models using both radiomic and clinical data (three random forest classifier models using different feature combinations). Kappa values comparing interrater reliability among expert clinicians were calculated. The best performing model was compared with clinical predication.
RESULTS: The AUC for expert clinician prediction of HE was 0.591, with a kappa of 0.156 for interrater variability, compared with ML models using radiomic data only (a deep learning model using image input, AUC 0.680) and using both radiomic and clinical data (a random forest model, AUC 0.677). The intraclass correlation coefficient for clinical judgment and the best performing ML model was 0.47 (95% confidence interval 0.23-0.75).
CONCLUSIONS: We introduced supervised ML algorithms demonstrating that HE prediction may outperform practicing clinicians. Despite overall moderate AUCs, our results set a new relative benchmark for performance in these tasks that even expert clinicians find challenging. These results emphasize the need for continued improvements and further enhanced clinical decision support to optimally manage patients with ICH.
METHODS: We used data from 900 study participants with ICH enrolled in the Antihypertensive Treatment of Acute Cerebral Hemorrhage 2 Study. ML models were developed using baseline HCT images, as well as admission clinical data in a training cohort (n = 621), and their performance was evaluated in an independent test cohort (n = 279) to predict HE (defined as HE by 33% or > 6 mL at 24 h). We simultaneously surveyed expert clinicians and asked them to predict HE using the same initial HCT images and clinical data. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were compared between clinician predictions, ML models using radiomic data only (a random forest classifier and a deep learning imaging model) and ML models using both radiomic and clinical data (three random forest classifier models using different feature combinations). Kappa values comparing interrater reliability among expert clinicians were calculated. The best performing model was compared with clinical predication.
RESULTS: The AUC for expert clinician prediction of HE was 0.591, with a kappa of 0.156 for interrater variability, compared with ML models using radiomic data only (a deep learning model using image input, AUC 0.680) and using both radiomic and clinical data (a random forest model, AUC 0.677). The intraclass correlation coefficient for clinical judgment and the best performing ML model was 0.47 (95% confidence interval 0.23-0.75).
CONCLUSIONS: We introduced supervised ML algorithms demonstrating that HE prediction may outperform practicing clinicians. Despite overall moderate AUCs, our results set a new relative benchmark for performance in these tasks that even expert clinicians find challenging. These results emphasize the need for continued improvements and further enhanced clinical decision support to optimally manage patients with ICH.