Non-inferiority of Deep Learning Acute Ischemic Stroke Segmentation on Non-Contrast CT Compared to Expert Neuroradiologists

To determine if a convolutional neural network (CNN) deep learning model can accurately segment acute ischemic changes on non-contrast CT compared to neuroradiologists. Non-contrast CT (NCCT) examinations from 232 acute ischemic stroke patients who were enrolled in the DEFUSE 3 trial were included in this study. Three experienced neuroradiologists independently segmented hypodensity that reflected the ischemic core on each scan. The neuroradiologist with the most experience (expert A) served as the ground truth for deep learning model training. Two additional neuroradiologists (experts B and C) segmentations were used for data testing. The 232 studies were randomly split into training and test sets. The training set was further randomly divided into 5 folds with training and validation sets. A 3-dimensional CNN architecture was trained and optimized to predict the segmentations of expert A from NCCT. The performance of the model was assessed using a set of volume, overlap, and distance metrics using non-inferiority thresholds of 20%, 3ml, and 3mm. The optimized model trained on expert A was compared to test experts B and C. We used a one-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test to test for the non-inferiority of the model-expert compared to the inter-expert agreement. The final model performance for the ischemic core segmentation task reached a performance of 0.46+-0.09 Surface Dice at Tolerance 5mm and 0.47+-0.13 Dice when trained on expert A. Compared to the two test neuroradiologists the model-expert agreement was non-inferior to the inter-expert agreement, p < 0.05. The CNN accurately delineates the hypodense ischemic core on NCCT in acute ischemic stroke patients with an accuracy comparable to neuroradiologists.

PDF Abstract

Datasets


  Add Datasets introduced or used in this paper

Results from the Paper


  Submit results from this paper to get state-of-the-art GitHub badges and help the community compare results to other papers.

Methods