Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Original research
Deep learning-based personalised outcome prediction after acute ischaemic stroke
  1. Doo-Young Kim1,
  2. Kang-Ho Choi2,3,
  3. Ja-Hae Kim1,4,
  4. Jina Hong3,
  5. Seong-Min Choi2,
  6. Man-Seok Park2,
  7. Ki-Hyun Cho2
  1. 1 Department of Artificial Intelligence Convergence, Chonnam National University, Gwangju, Korea (the Republic of)
  2. 2 Department of Neurology, Chonnam National University Medical School and Hospital, Gwangju, Korea (the Republic of)
  3. 3 Department of Biomedical Sciences, Chonnam National University, Gwangju, Korea (the Republic of)
  4. 4 Department of Nuclear Medicine, Chonnam National University Medical School and Hospital, Gwangju, Korea (the Republic of)
  1. Correspondence to Professor Ja-Hae Kim, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Chonnam National University Medical School and Hospital, Gwangju 61469, Korea (the Republic of); jhbt0607{at}hanmail.net; Professor Kang-Ho Choi, Department of Neurology, Chonnam National University Medical School and Hospital, Gwangju, Korea (the Republic of); ckhchoikang{at}hanmail.net

Abstract

Background Whether deep learning models using clinical data and brain imaging can predict the long-term risk of major adverse cerebro/cardiovascular events (MACE) after acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) at the individual level has not yet been studied.

Methods A total of 8590 patients with AIS admitted within 5 days of symptom onset were enrolled. The primary outcome was the occurrence of MACEs (a composite of stroke, acute myocardial infarction or death) over 12 months. The performance of deep learning models (DeepSurv and Deep-Survival-Machines (DeepSM)) and traditional survival models (Cox proportional hazards (CoxPH) and random survival forest (RSF)) were compared using the time-dependent concordance index (Embedded Image index).

Results Given the top 1 to all 60 clinical factors according to feature importance, CoxPH and RSF yielded Embedded Image index of 0.7236–0.8222 and 0.7279–0.8335, respectively. Adding image features improved the performance of deep learning models and traditional models assisted by deep learning models. DeepSurv and DeepSM yielded the best Embedded Image index of 0.8496 and 0.8531 when images were added to all 39 relevant clinical factors, respectively. In feature importance, brain image was consistently ranked highly. Deep learning models automatically extracted the image features directly from personalised brain images and predicted the risk and date of future MACEs at the individual level.

Conclusions Deep learning models using clinical data and brain images could improve the prediction of MACEs and provide personalised outcome prediction for patients with AIS. Deep learning models will allow us to develop more accurate and tailored prognostic prediction systems that outperform traditional models.

  • STROKE
  • CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASE
  • CLINICAL NEUROLOGY

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request. All supporting data within the article are available on reasonable request from a qualified investigator.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request. All supporting data within the article are available on reasonable request from a qualified investigator.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • D-YK and K-HC contributed equally.

  • Contributors Conceived and designed the experiments: D-YK, K-HC and J-HK. Performed the experiments: D-YK, K-HC and J-HK. Analysed the data: D-YK and J-HK. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: JH, S-MC, M-SP and K-HC. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: D-YK, K-HC and J-HK. Statistical analysis: D-YK, K-HC and J-HK. K-HC acts as a guarantor and accepts full responsibility for the finished work and/or the conduct of the study, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish.

  • Funding This work was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2020R1A2C1101082, J-HK).

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.