Finding the Best Predictor for Delayed Cerebral Ischemia After Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

Published on June 17, 2022

Imagine you’re trying to predict the weather. You can use conventional methods like reading a barometer or you can turn to more advanced technology like a weather satellite. Similarly, when it comes to predicting delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI) after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH), machine learning (ML) algorithms are being seen as more powerful than conventional logistic regression (LR). In this study, scientists compared LR and six ML algorithms to see which had the better prediction power. The results showed that while LR did well, random forest (RF) and artificial neural network models performed even better. In fact, the RF model had an accuracy 20.8% higher than LR. The study identified key features that were important in DCI prediction, such as the CT value of subarachnoid hemorrhage and WBC count. Based on these features, the scientists even developed an online tool to calculate DCI risk precisely. These findings have important implications for identifying high-risk patients and providing timely interventions after SAH.

BackgroundTimely and accurate prediction of delayed cerebral ischemia is critical for improving the prognosis of patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Machine learning (ML) algorithms are increasingly regarded as having a higher prediction power than conventional logistic regression (LR). This study aims to construct LR and ML models and compare their prediction power on delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI) after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH).MethodsThis was a multicenter, retrospective, observational cohort study that enrolled patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage from five hospitals in China. A total of 404 aSAH patients were prospectively enrolled. We randomly divided the patients into training (N = 303) and validation cohorts (N = 101) according to a ratio of 75–25%. One LR and six popular ML algorithms were used to construct models. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, balanced accuracy, confusion matrix, sensitivity, specificity, calibration curve, and Hosmer–Lemeshow test were used to assess and compare the model performance. Finally, we calculated each feature of importance.ResultsA total of 112 (27.7%) patients developed DCI. Our results showed that conventional LR with an AUC value of 0.824 (95%CI: 0.73–0.91) in the validation cohort outperformed k-nearest neighbor, decision tree, support vector machine, and extreme gradient boosting model with the AUCs of 0.792 (95%CI: 0.68–0.9, P = 0.46), 0.675 (95%CI: 0.56–0.79, P < 0.01), 0.677 (95%CI: 0.57–0.77, P < 0.01), and 0.78 (95%CI: 0.68–0.87, P = 0.50). However, random forest (RF) and artificial neural network model with the same AUC (0.858, 95%CI: 0.78–0.93, P = 0.26) were better than the LR. The accuracy and the balanced accuracy of the RF were 20.8% and 11% higher than the latter, and the RF also showed good calibration in the validation cohort (Hosmer-Lemeshow: P = 0.203). We found that the CT value of subarachnoid hemorrhage, WBC count, neutrophil count, CT value of cerebral edema, and monocyte count were the five most important features for DCI prediction in the RF model. We then developed an online prediction tool (https://dynamic-nomogram.shinyapps.io/DynNomapp-DCI/) based on important features to calculate DCI risk precisely.ConclusionsIn this multicenter study, we found that several ML methods, particularly RF, outperformed conventional LR. Furthermore, an online prediction tool based on the RF model was developed to identify patients at high risk for DCI after SAH and facilitate timely interventions.Clinical Trial Registrationhttp://www.chictr.org.cn, Unique identifier: ChiCTR2100044448.

Read Full Article (External Site)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>