Deep Learning-Based Automated Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction Scoring: A Timely Proof-of-Principle Study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Mechanical thrombectomy is an established procedure for treatment of acute ischemic stroke. Mechanical thrombectomy success is commonly assessed by the Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) score, assigned by visual inspection of X-ray digital subtraction angiography data. However, expert-based TICI scoring is highly observer-dependent. This represents a major obstacle for mechanical thrombectomy outcome comparison in, for instance, multicentric clinical studies. Focusing on occlusions of the M1 segment of the middle cerebral artery, the present study aimed to develop a deep learning (DL) solution to automated and, therefore, objective TICI scoring, to evaluate the agreement of DL- and expert-based scoring, and to compare corresponding numbers to published scoring variability of clinical experts.

METHODS

The study comprises 2 independent datasets. For DL system training and initial evaluation, an in-house dataset of 491 digital subtraction angiography series and modified TICI scores of 236 patients with M1 occlusions was collected. To test the model generalization capability, an independent external dataset with 95 digital subtraction angiography series was analyzed. Characteristics of the DL system were modeling TICI scoring as ordinal regression, explicit consideration of the temporal image information, integration of physiological knowledge, and modeling of inherent TICI scoring uncertainties.

RESULTS

For the in-house dataset, the DL system yields Cohen’s kappa, overall accuracy, and specific agreement values of 0.61, 71%, and 63% to 84%, respectively, compared with the gold standard: the expert rating. Values slightly drop to 0.52/64%/43% to 87% when the model is, without changes, applied to the external dataset. After model updating, they increase to 0.65/74%/60% to 90%. Literature Cohen’s kappa values for expert-based TICI scoring agreement are in the order of 0.6.

CONCLUSIONS

The agreement of DL- and expert-based modified TICI scores in the range of published interobserver variability of clinical experts highlights the potential of the proposed DL solution to automated TICI scoring.