4.2 Article

Machine Learning Classification of Cerebral Aneurysm Rupture Status with Morphologic Variables and Hemodynamic Parameters

Journal

RADIOLOGY-ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Volume 2, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICA (RSNA)
DOI: 10.1148/ryai.2019190077

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Scientific Research from Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [17K10825, 18K16556]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To construct a classification model of rupture status and to clarify the importance of morphologic variables and hemodynamic parameters on rupture status by applying a machine learning (ML) algorithm to morphologic and hemodynamic data of cerebral aneurysms. Materials and Methods: Between 2011 and 2019, 226 (112 ruptured and 114 unruptured) cerebral aneurysms in 188 consecutive patients were retrospectively analyzed with computational fluid dynamics (CFD). A random forest ML algorithm was applied to the results to create three classification models consisting of only morphologic variables (model 1), only hemodynamic parameters (model 2), and both morphologic variables and hemodynamic parameters (model 3). The accuracy of rupture status classification and the importance of each variable or parameter in the models were computed. Results: The accuracy was 77.0% in model 1, 71.2% in model 2, and 78.3% in model 3. The three most important features were projection ratio, size ratio, and aspect ratio in model 1; low shear area ratio, oscillatory shear index, and oscillatory velocity index in model 2; and projection ratio, irregular shape, and size ratio in model 3. Conclusion: Classification models of rupture status of cerebral aneurysms were constructed by applying an ML algorithm to morphologic variables and hemodynamic parameters. The model worked with relatively high accuracy, in which projection ratio, irregular shape, and size ratio were important for the discrimination of ruptured aneurysms. (c) RSNA, 2020

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available