Why the study?
Determining the best treatment strategy between CEA and CAS is challenging, prompting the need for an accurate machine learning prediction model to support patient-specific treatment planning.
Do machine learning models accurately predict early ischemic events after carotid endarterectomy or stenting compared to surgeon predictions in patients with carotid stenosis?
Do machine learning models accurately predict early ischemic events after carotid endarterectomy or stenting compared to surgeon predictions in patients with carotid stenosis?
A machine learning model using XGBoost can predict post-procedural ischemic events after CEA or CAS with accuracy comparable to surgeons, potentially aiding patient-specific treatment selection.
Comparable accuracy to surgeons should not yet change practice; leaves open whether ML augments risk stratification in carotid stenosis.
Background Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) are recommended for high stroke-risk patients with carotid artery stenosis to reduce ischemic events. However, we often face difficulty in determining the best treatment strategy. Objective We aimed to develop an accurate post-CEA/CAS outcome prediction model using machine learning that will serve as a basis for a new decision support tool for patient-specific treatment planning. Methods Retrospectively collected data from 165 consecutive patients with carotid stenosis underwent CEA or CAS were divided into training and test samples. The following five machine learning algorithms were tuned, and their predictive performance evaluated by comparison with surgeon predictions: an artificial neural network, logistic regression, support vector machine, random forest, and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost). Seventeen clinical factors were introduced into the models. Outcome was defined as any ischemic stroke within 30 days after treatment including asymptomatic diffusion-weighted imaging abnormalities. Results The XGBoost model performed the best in the evaluation; its sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and accuracy were 31.9%, 94.6%, 47.2%, and 86.2%, respectively. These statistical measures were comparable to those of surgeons. Internal carotid artery peak systolic velocity, low density lipoprotein cholesterol, and procedure (CEA or CAS) were the most contributing factors according to the XGBoost algorithm. Conclusion We were able to develop a post-procedural outcome prediction model comparable to surgeons in performance. The accurate outcome prediction model will make it possible to make a more appropriate patient-specific selection of CEA or CAS for the treatment of carotid artery stenosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Matsuo et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: