DataSheet1_Predicting 1-Hour Thrombolysis Effect of r-tPA in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke Using Machine Learning Algorithm.DOCX
Background: Thrombolysis with r-tPA is recommended for patients after acute ischemic stroke (AIS) within 4.5 h of symptom onset. However, only a few patients benefit from this therapeutic regimen. Thus, we aimed to develop an interpretable machine learning (ML)–based model to predict the thrombolysis effect of r-tPA at the super-early stage.
Methods: A total of 353 patients with AIS were divided into training and test data sets. We then used six ML algorithms and a recursive feature elimination (RFE) method to explore the relationship among the clinical variables along with the NIH stroke scale score 1 h after thrombolysis treatment. Shapley additive explanations and local interpretable model–agnostic explanation algorithms were applied to interpret the ML models and determine the importance of the selected features.
Results: Altogether, 353 patients with an average age of 63.0 (56.0–71.0) years were enrolled in the study. Of these patients, 156 showed a favorable thrombolysis effect and 197 showed an unfavorable effect. A total of 14 variables were enrolled in the modeling, and 6 ML algorithms were used to predict the thrombolysis effect. After RFE screening, seven variables under the gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT) model (area under the curve = 0.81, specificity = 0.61, sensitivity = 0.9, and F1 score = 0.79) demonstrated the best performance. Of the seven variables, activated partial thromboplastin clotting time (time), B-type natriuretic peptide, and fibrin degradation products were the three most important clinical characteristics that might influence r-tPA efficiency.
Conclusion: This study demonstrated that the GBDT model with the seven variables could better predict the early thrombolysis effect of r-tPA.
History
References
- https://doi.org//10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.001593
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.jns.2021.117580
- https://doi.org//10.1136/svn-2017-000074
- https://doi.org//10.1210/clinem/dgaa698
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s11239-021-02531-2
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.neurad.2019.10.005
- https://doi.org//10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.024293
- https://doi.org//10.1097/CCM.0000000000004597
- https://doi.org//10.1161/CIRCEP.117.005499
- https://doi.org//10.3389/fneur.2018.00945
- https://doi.org//10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.029305
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.jacc.2016.03.555
- https://doi.org//10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.027611
- https://doi.org//10.1038/s41598-021-92041-1
- https://doi.org//10.3389/fneur.2020.570181
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.cjca.2021.09.004
- https://doi.org//10.1136/bmj.l6983
- https://doi.org//10.1056/NEJMra1814259
- https://doi.org//10.1161/01.STR.0000196957.55928.ab
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2020.105162
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.clineuro.2020.105892
- https://doi.org//10.1371/journal.pone.0234722
- https://doi.org//10.3389/fneur.2021.651867