Radiomics Outperforms Clinical and Radiologic Signs in Predicting Spontaneous Basal Ganglia Hematoma Expansion: A Pilot Study.
basal ganglia
hematoma
hematoma expansion
machine learning
radiomics
Journal
Cureus
ISSN: 2168-8184
Titre abrégé: Cureus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101596737
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2023
Apr 2023
Historique:
accepted:
05
04
2023
medline:
8
5
2023
pubmed:
8
5
2023
entrez:
8
5
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Prediction of the hematoma expansion (HE) of spontaneous basal ganglia hematoma (SBH) from the first non-contrast CT can result in better management, which has the potential of improving outcomes. This study has been designed to compare the performance of "Radiomics analysis," "radiology signs," and "clinical-laboratory data" for this task. We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records for clinical, demographic, and laboratory data in patients with SBH. CT images were reviewed for the presence of radiologic signs, including black-hole, blend, swirl, satellite, and island signs. Radiomic features from the SBH on the first brain CT were extracted, and the most predictive features were selected. Different machine learning models were developed based on clinical, laboratory, and radiology signs and selected Radiomic features to predict hematoma expansion (HE). The dataset used for this analysis included 116 patients with SBH. Among different models and different thresholds to define hematoma expansion (10%, 20%, 25%, 33%, 40%, and 50% volume enlargement thresholds), the Random Forest based on 10 selected Radiomic features achieved the best performance (for 25% hematoma enlargement) with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.9 on the training dataset and 0.89 on the test dataset. The models based on clinical-laboratory and radiology signs had low performance (AUCs about 0.5-0.6).
Identifiants
pubmed: 37153238
doi: 10.7759/cureus.37162
pmc: PMC10162352
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e37162Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023, Rezaei et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Clin Radiol. 2021 Aug;76(8):629.e1-629.e9
pubmed: 33858695
Stroke. 1993 Jul;24(7):987-93
pubmed: 8322400
Stroke. 2004 Jun;35(6):1364-7
pubmed: 15118169
Stroke. 2016 Apr;47(4):958-63
pubmed: 26931155
Br J Radiol. 2021 May 01;94(1121):20200724
pubmed: 33835831
Acad Radiol. 2021 Mar;28(3):307-317
pubmed: 32238303
Curr Med Imaging. 2020;16(7):878-886
pubmed: 33059557
Korean J Radiol. 2021 Mar;22(3):415-424
pubmed: 33169546
Eur Radiol. 2021 Oct;31(10):7945-7959
pubmed: 33860831
J Stroke. 2017 Jan;19(1):3-10
pubmed: 28178408
Medicine (Baltimore). 2021 Feb 19;100(7):e24737
pubmed: 33607818
J Clin Neurosci. 2021 May;87:103-111
pubmed: 33863516
Stroke. 2001 Apr;32(4):891-7
pubmed: 11283388
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2018 Jun;27(6):1705-1710
pubmed: 29525078
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Aug;97(34):e11945
pubmed: 30142815
Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2020 Oct;197:106139
pubmed: 32836065
Int J Stroke. 2021 Nov 29;:17474930211061639
pubmed: 34842473
Front Neurol. 2020 Jul 17;11:702
pubmed: 32765408
Neurology. 2012 Jul 24;79(4):314-9
pubmed: 22744655
Eur Radiol. 2020 Jan;30(1):87-98
pubmed: 31385050
Neurol Sci. 2017 Sep;38(9):1591-1597
pubmed: 28577268
Sci Rep. 2018 Mar 19;8(1):4819
pubmed: 29555930
Stroke. 2017 Nov;48(11):3019-3025
pubmed: 29018128
J Neurosurg. 1994 Jan;80(1):51-7
pubmed: 8271022
Stroke. 2020 Jan;51(1):121-128
pubmed: 31735141
J Clin Neurosci. 2021 Apr;86:271-275
pubmed: 33775341
Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2001 Jun;41(6):300-4; discussion 304-5
pubmed: 11458742
Front Neurosci. 2020 Jun 04;14:491
pubmed: 32581674
Eur J Radiol. 2019 Jun;115:10-15
pubmed: 31084753
Oncology. 2021;99(7):433-443
pubmed: 33849021
Cureus. 2021 Dec 1;13(12):e20080
pubmed: 34987940