» Articles » PMID: 34373056

Machine Learning Models Improve Prediction of Large Vessel Occlusion and Mechanical Thrombectomy Candidacy in Acute Ischemic Stroke

Overview
Journal J Clin Neurosci
Specialty Neurology
Date 2021 Aug 10
PMID 34373056
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background And Purpose: Early identification of large vessel occlusions (LVO) and timely recanalization are paramount to improved clinical outcomes in acute ischemic stroke. A stroke assessment that maximizes sensitivity and specificity for LVOs is needed to identify these cases and not overburden the health system with unnecessary transfers. Machine learning techniques are being used for predictive modeling in many aspects of stroke care and may have potential in predicting LVO presence and mechanical thrombectomy (MT) candidacy.

Methods: Ischemic stroke patients treated at Loyola University Medical Center from July 2018 to June 2019 (N = 286) were included. Thirty-five clinical and demographic variables were analyzed using machine learning algorithms, including logistic regression, extreme gradient boosting, random forest (RF), and decision trees to build models predictive of LVO presence and MT candidacy by area of the curve (AUC) analysis. The best performing model was compared with prior stroke scales.

Results: When using all 35 variables, RF best predicted LVO presence (AUC = 0.907 ± 0.856-0.957) while logistic regression best predicted MT candidacy (AUC = 0.930 ± 0.886-0.974). When compact models were evaluated, a 10-feature RF model best predicted LVO (AUC = 0.841 ± 0.778-0.904) and an 8-feature RF model best predicted MT candidacy (AUC = 0.862 ± 0.782-0.942). The compact RF models had sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value and positive predictive value of 0.81, 0.87, 0.92, 0.72 for LVO and 0.87, 0.97, 0.97, 0.86 for MT, respectively. The 10-feature RF model was superior at predicting LVO to all previous stroke scales (AUC 0.944 vs 0.759-0.878) and the 8-feature RF model was superior at predicting MT (AUC 0.970 vs 0.746-0.834).

Conclusion: Random forest machine learning models utilizing clinical and demographic variables predicts LVO presence and MT candidacy with a high degree of accuracy in an ischemic stroke cohort. Further validation of this strategy for triage of stroke patients requires prospective and external validation.

Citing Articles

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prehospital Machine Learning Scores as Screening Tools for Early Detection of Large Vessel Occlusion in Patients With Suspected Stroke.

Alobaida M, Joddrell M, Zheng Y, Lip G, Rowe F, El-Bouri W J Am Heart Assoc. 2024; 13(12):e033298.

PMID: 38874054 PMC: 11255760. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.123.033298.


Emerging frontiers of artificial intelligence and machine learning in ischemic stroke: a comprehensive investigation of state-of-the-art methodologies, clinical applications, and unraveling challenges.

Fan Y, Song Z, Zhang M EPMA J. 2023; 14(4):645-661.

PMID: 38094579 PMC: 10713915. DOI: 10.1007/s13167-023-00343-3.

References
1.
Rajkomar A, Dean J, Kohane I . Machine Learning in Medicine. N Engl J Med. 2019; 380(14):1347-1358. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra1814259. View

2.
Saver J, Goyal M, Bonafe A, Diener H, Levy E, Pereira V . Stent-retriever thrombectomy after intravenous t-PA vs. t-PA alone in stroke. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372(24):2285-95. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1415061. View

3.
Llanes J, Kidwell C, Starkman S, Leary M, Eckstein M, Saver J . The Los Angeles Motor Scale (LAMS): a new measure to characterize stroke severity in the field. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2003; 8(1):46-50. DOI: 10.1080/312703002806. View

4.
Albers G, Marks M, Kemp S, Christensen S, Tsai J, Ortega-Gutierrez S . Thrombectomy for Stroke at 6 to 16 Hours with Selection by Perfusion Imaging. N Engl J Med. 2018; 378(8):708-718. PMC: 6590673. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1713973. View

5.
Perez de la Ossa N, Carrera D, Gorchs M, Querol M, Millan M, Gomis M . Design and validation of a prehospital stroke scale to predict large arterial occlusion: the rapid arterial occlusion evaluation scale. Stroke. 2013; 45(1):87-91. DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.113.003071. View