Decisions regarding acute stroke treatment rely heavily on imaging, but interpretation can be difficult for physicians. Machine learning methods can assist clinicians by providing tissue outcome predictions for different treatment approaches based on acute multi-parametric imaging. To produce such clinically viable machine learning models, factors such as classifier choice, data normalization, and data balancing must be considered. This study gives comprehensive consideration to these factors by comparing the agreement of voxel-based tissue outcome predictions using acute imaging and clinical parameters with manual lesion segmentations derived from follow-up imaging. This study considers random decision forest, generalized linear model, and k-nearest-neighbor machine learning classifiers in conjunction with three data normalization approaches (non-normalized, relative to contralateral hemisphere, and relative to contralateral VOI), and two data balancing strategies (full dataset and stratified subsampling). These classifier settings were evaluated based on 90 MRI datasets from acute ischemic stroke patients. Distinction was made between patients recanalized using intraarterial and intravenous methods, as well as those without successful recanalization. For primary quantitative comparison, the Dice metric was computed for each voxel-based tissue outcome prediction and its corresponding follow-up lesion segmentation. It was found that the random forest classifier outperformed the generalized linear model and the k-nearest-neighbor classifier, that normalization did not improve the Dice score of the lesion outcome predictions, and that the models generated lesion outcome predictions with higher Dice scores when trained with balanced datasets. No significant difference was found between the treatment groups (intraarterial vs intravenous) regarding the Dice score of the tissue outcome predictions.
展开▼
