Back

Detecting CTP Truncation Artifacts in Acute Stroke Imaging from the Arterial Input and the Vascular Output Functions

de la Rosa, E.; Sima, D. M.; Kirschke, J. S.; Menze, B. H.; Robben, D.

2022-06-21 neurology
10.1101/2022.06.16.22276371 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundCurrent guidelines for CT perfusion (CTP) in acute stroke suggest acquiring scans with a minimal duration of 60-70 s. But even then, CTP analysis can be affected by truncation artifacts. Conversely, shorter acquisitions are still widely used in clinical practice and are usually sufficient to reliably estimate lesion volumes. We aim to devise an automatic method that detects scans affected by truncation artifacts. MethodsShorter scan durations are simulated from the ISLES18 dataset by consecutively removing the last CTP time-point until reaching a 10 s duration. For each truncated series, perfusion lesion volumes are quantified and used to label the series as unreliable if the lesion volumes considerably deviate from the original untruncated ones. Afterwards, nine features from the arterial input function (AIF) and the vascular output function (VOF) are derived and used to fit machine-learning models with the goal of detecting unreliably truncated scans. Methods are compared against a baseline classifier solely based on the scan duration, which is the current clinical standard. The ROC-AUC, precision-recall AUC and the F1-score are measured in a 5-fold cross-validation setting. ResultsMachine learning models obtained high performance, with a ROC-AUC of 0.964 and precision-recall AUC of 0.958 for the best performing classifier. The highest detection rate is obtained with support vector machines (F1-score = 0.913). The most important feature is the AIFcoverage, measured as the time difference between the scan duration and the AIF peak. In comparison, the baseline classifier yielded a lower performance of 0.940 ROC-AUC and 0.933 precision-recall AUC. At the 60-second cutoff, the baseline classifier obtained a low detection of unreliably truncated scans (F1-Score = 0.638). ConclusionsMachine learning models fed with discriminant AIF and VOF features accurately detected unreliable stroke lesion measurements due to insufficient acquisition duration. Unlike the 60s scan duration criterion, the devised models are robust to variable contrast injection and CTP acquisition protocols and could hence be used for quality assurance in CTP post-processing software.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Medical Imaging
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.4%
2
Computers in Biology and Medicine
128 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
9.4%
3
Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
41 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.7%
4
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.1%
5
NeuroImage
903 papers in training set
Top 3%
5.0%
6
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
85 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.7%
7
Frontiers in Neuroscience
256 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.3%
8
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
40 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.1%
50% of probability mass above
9
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 39%
2.7%
10
Human Brain Mapping
329 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
11
Medical Physics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.3%
12
NeuroImage: Clinical
144 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.3%
13
GigaScience
212 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
14
Frontiers in Neurology
102 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
15
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 46%
2.1%
16
Neuroinformatics
46 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
17
IEEE Access
35 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
18
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
19
NMR in Biomedicine
28 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
20
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
21
Brain Structure and Function
93 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
22
Medical Image Analysis
35 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
23
Imaging Neuroscience
282 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
24
Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
25
Bioengineering
29 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.1%
26
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 18%
1.0%
27
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
28 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.0%
28
Sensors
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
29
Brain Informatics
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
30
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
23 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%