Back

Beyond Accuracy: Investigating the Potential Clinical Utility of Predicting Functional Dependency and Severe Disability or Death in Successfully Reperfused Patients using Machine Learning

Meier, R.; Burri, M.; Fischer, S.; McKinley, R.; Jung, S.; Meinel, T.; Fischer, U.; Piechowiak, E. I.; Mordasini, P.; Gralla, J.; Wiest, R.; Kaesmacher, J.

2020-11-18 neurology
10.1101/2020.11.17.20232280 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectivesMachine learning (ML) has been demonstrated to improve the prediction of functional outcome in patients with acute ischemic stroke. However, its value in a specific clinical use case has not been investigated. Aim of this study was to assess the clinical utility of ML models with respect to predicting functional impairment and severe disability or death considering its potential value as a decision-support tool in an acute stroke workflow. Materials and MethodsPatients (n=1317) from a retrospective, non-randomized observational registry treated with Mechanical Thrombectomy (MT) were included. The final dataset of patients who underwent successful recanalization (TICI [≥] 2b) (n=932) was split in order to develop ML-based prediction models using data of (n=745, 80%) patients. Subsequently, the models were tested on the remaining patient data (n=187, 20%). For comparison, baseline algorithms using majority class prediction, SPAN-100 score, PRE score, and Stroke-TPI score were implemented. The ML methods included eight different algorithms (e.g. Support Vector Machines and Random forests), stacked ensemble method and tabular neural networks. Prediction of modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 3-6 (primary analysis) and mRS 5-6 (secondary analysis) at 3 months was performed using 25 baseline variables available at patient admission. ML models were assessed with respect to their ability for discrimination, calibration and clinical utility (decision curve analysis). ResultsAnalyzed patients (n=932) showed a median age of 74.7 (IQR 62.7-82.4) years with (n=461, 49.5%) being female. ML methods performed better than clinical scores with stacked ensemble method providing the best overall performance including an F1-score of 0.75 {+/-} 0.01, an ROC-AUC of 0.81 {+/-} 0.00, AP score of 0.81 {+/-} 0.01, MCC of 0.48 {+/-} 0.02, and ECE of 0.06 {+/-} 0.01 for prediction of mRS 3-6, and an F1-score of 0.57 {+/-} 0.02, an ROC-AUC of 0.79 {+/-} 0.01, AP score of 0.54 {+/-} 0.02, MCC of 0.39 {+/-} 0.03, and ECE of 0.19 {+/-} 0.01 for prediction of mRS 5-6. Decision curve analyses suggested highest mean net benefit of 0.09 {+/-} 0.02 at a-priori defined threshold (0.8) for the stacked ensemble method in primary analysis (mRS 3-6). Across all methods, higher mean net benefits were achieved for optimized probability thresholds but with considerably reduced certainty (threshold probabilities 0.24-0.47). For the secondary analysis (mRS 5-6), none of the ML models achieved a positive net benefit for the a-priori threshold probability 0.8. ConclusionsThe clinical utility of ML prediction models in a decision-support scenario aimed at yielding a high certainty for prediction of functional dependency (mRS 3-6) is marginal and not evident for the prediction of severe disability or death (mRS 5-6). Hence, using those models for patient exclusion cannot be recommended and future research should evaluate utility gains after incorporating more advanced imaging parameters.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 4%
12.4%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 15%
12.4%
3
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.0%
4
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
8.4%
5
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
28 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.6%
6
Biomedicines
66 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
50% of probability mass above
7
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
8
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.1%
9
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.7%
10
Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.6%
11
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.3%
12
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
13
BMC Neurology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
14
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
15
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
16
IEEE Access
31 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.2%
17
Neurocritical Care
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
18
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
19
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
20
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
21
BioMed Research International
25 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
22
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
23
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
24
NeuroImage: Clinical
132 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
25
European Journal of Neurology
20 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
26
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 60%
0.7%
27
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
28
Journal of Neurology
26 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
29
Brain Communications
147 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
30
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.6%