A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Deep learning-based personalised outcome prediction after acute ischaemic stroke. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article 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 ([Formula: see text] index).

Results: Given the top 1 to all 60 clinical factors according to feature importance, CoxPH and RSF yielded [Formula: see text] 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 [Formula: see text] 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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2022-330230DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

deep learning
28
learning models
28
[formula text]
12
models
10
deep
8
personalised outcome
8
outcome prediction
8
acute ischaemic
8
ischaemic stroke
8
models clinical
8

Similar Publications