Key result
Adaptive neuro-fuzzy model predicts CT infarct volume with ~82% accuracy, outperforming standard regression models.
Observational (n=67)
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The prediction of infarction volume after stroke onset depends on the shape of the growth dynamics of the infarction. To understand growth patterns that predict lesion volume changes, we studied currently available models described in literature and compared the models with Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System [ANFIS], a method previously unused in the prediction of infarction growth and infarction volume (IV). We included 67 patients with malignant middle cerebral artery [MMCA] stroke who underwent decompressive hemicraniectomy. All patients had at least three cranial CT scans prior to the surgery. The rate of growth and volume of infarction measured on the third CT was predicted with ANFIS without statistically significant difference compared to the ground truth [P = 0.489]. This was not possible with linear, logarithmic or exponential methods. ANFIS was able to predict infarction volume [IV3] over a wide range of volume [163.7–600 cm 3 ] and time [22–110 hours]. The cross correlation [CRR] indicated similarity between the ANFIS-predicted IV3 and original data of 82% for ANFIS, followed by logarithmic 70%, exponential 63% and linear 48% respectively. Our study shows that ANFIS is superior to previously defined methods in the prediction of infarction growth rate (IGR) with reasonable accuracy, over wide time and volume range.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kamran et al. (2017) conducted an observational in Malignant middle cerebral artery (MMCA) acute ischemic stroke (n=67). Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) vs. Linear, logarithmic, and exponential prediction models was evaluated on Prediction of rate of growth and volume of infarction measured on the third CT scan (IV3) (Cross correlation 82%, p=0.489). Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System predicted third-CT infarction volume with 82% cross-correlation vs 70% logarithmic, 63% exponential, and 48% linear models (P=0.489 vs ground truth).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: