TY - JOUR
T1 - Outcome Prediction in Patients with Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Using Deep Learning from Head CT Scans
AU - TRACK-TBI Investigators
AU - Pease, Matthew
AU - Arefan, Dooman
AU - Barber, Jason
AU - Yuh, Esther
AU - Puccio, Ava
AU - Hochberger, Kerri
AU - Nwachuku, Enyinna
AU - Roy, Souvik
AU - Casillo, Stephanie
AU - Temkin, Nancy
AU - Okonkwo, David O.
AU - Wu, Shandong
AU - Badjatia, Neeraj
AU - Bodien, Yelena
AU - Duhaime, Ann Christine
AU - Feeser, V. Ramana
AU - Ferguson, Adam R.
AU - Foreman, Brandon
AU - Gardner, Raquel
AU - Gopinath, Shankar
AU - Keene, C. Dirk
AU - Madden, Christopher
AU - McCrea, Michael
AU - Mukherjee, Pratik
AU - Ngwenya, Laura B.
AU - Schnyer, David
AU - Taylor, Sabrina
AU - Yue, John K.
N1 - Funding Information:
Disclosures of conflicts of interest: M.P. Fellowship grant from the Congress of Neurological Surgeons Data Science, Member of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons Data Science Committee and Quality Committee. D.A. No relevant relationships. J.B. Licensing payments for U.S. patent 11,200,664. E.Y. No relevant relationships. A.P. No relevant relationships. K.H. No relevant relationships. E.N. No relevant relationships. S.R. No relevant relationships. S.C. No relevant relationships. N.T. Consulting fees from the U.S. Department of Energy. D.O.O. Chair of the AANS/CNS Section on Neurotrauma and Critical Care. S.W. Grants from Stanly Marks Research Foundation, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh, NSF, and NSF/NIH joint program; consulting fees from COGNISTX; patent for a real-time artificial intelligence–enabled analysis device and method for use in nuclear medicine imaging is under professional review; past member of the Breast Cancer Early Detection, Prevention, and Risk Assessment Scientific Committee of the Wu Jie-Ping Medical Foundation; member of the RSNA Scientific Program Committee for Breast Imaging; member of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group Radiomics Imaging Committee; member of the SPIE Medical Imaging Conference Technical Committee; member of the Computer-aided Diagnosis Conference SPIE Medical Imaging Conference Technical Committee; member of the Imaging Informatics for Healthcare, Research, and Applications; member of the Council of Early Career Investigators in Imaging of the Academy of Radiology Research and Coalition for Imaging and Bioengineering Research; member of the RSNA R&E Foundation Fund Development Committee–Corporate Giving Subcommittee; stock in Cognistx; computational devices from Nvidia; Journal of Digital Imaging editorial board.
Funding Information:
Supported in part by the National Institutes of Health and National Cancer Institute (R01CA218405), National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke (U01 NS1365885, U01 NS086090), and U.S. Department of Defense (W911QY-14-C-0070, W81XWH-18–2-0042, W81XWH-15–9-0001, W81XWH-14–2-0176). Supported by a Radiological Society of North America Research Scholar grant (RSCH1530), an Amazon Machine Learning Research Award, and the Congress of Neurologic Surgeons Data Science Fellowship grant. This work used the Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment, which is supported by the National Science Foundation (ACI-1548562). Specifically, it used the Bridges system, which is supported by the National Science Foundation (ACI-1445606), at the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center. TRACK-TBI received support from the National Football League Scientific Advisory Board, the U.S. Department of Energy for Precision Medicine, One Mind for TRACK-TBI patients’ stipends and support to clinical sites, NeuroTrauma Sciences to support data curation efforts, and Abbott Laboratories for add-in clinical studies. * M.P. and D.A. contributed equally to this work. ** D.O.O. and S.W. are co-senior authors. Conflicts of interest are listed at the end of this article. See also the editorial by Haller in this issue.
Publisher Copyright:
© RSNA, 2022.
PY - 2022/8
Y1 - 2022/8
N2 - Background: After severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI), physicians use long-term prognostication to guide acute clinical care yet struggle to predict outcomes in comatose patients. Purpose: To develop and evaluate a prognostic model combining deep learning of head CT scans and clinical information to predict long-term outcomes after sTBI. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of two prospectively collected databases. The model-building set included 537 patients (mean age, 40 years ± 17 [SD]; 422 men) from one institution from November 2002 to December 2018. Transfer learning and curriculum learning were applied to a convolutional neural network using admission head CT to predict mortality and unfavorable outcomes (Glasgow Outcomes Scale scores 1-3) at 6 months. This was combined with clinical input for a holistic fusion model. The models were evaluated using an independent internal test set and an external cohort of 220 patients with sTBI (mean age, 39 years ± 17; 166 men) from 18 institutions in the Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury (TRACK-TBI) study from February 2014 to April 2018. The models were compared with the International Mission on Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in TBI (IMPACT) model and the predictions of three neurosurgeons. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used as the main model performance metric. Results: The fusion model had higher AUCs than did the IMPACT model in the prediction of mortality (AUC, 0.92 [95% CI: 0.86, 0.97] vs 0.80 [95% CI: 0.71, 0.88]; P < .001) and unfavorable outcomes (AUC, 0.88 [95% CI: 0.82, 0.94] vs 0.82 [95% CI: 0.75, 0.90]; P = .04) on the internal data set. For external TRACK-TBI testing, there was no evidence of a significant difference in the performance of any models compared with the IMPACT model (AUC, 0.83; 95% CI: 0.77, 0.90) in the prediction of mortality. The Imaging model (AUC, 0.73; 95% CI: 0.66-0.81; P = .02) and the fusion model (AUC, 0.68; 95% CI: 0.60, 0.76; P = .02) underperformed as compared with the IMPACT model (AUC, 0.83; 95% CI: 0.77, 0.89) in the prediction of unfavorable outcomes. The fusion model outperformed the predictions of the neurosurgeons. Conclusion: A deep learning model of head CT and clinical information can be used to predict 6-month outcomes after severe traumatic brain injury.
AB - Background: After severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI), physicians use long-term prognostication to guide acute clinical care yet struggle to predict outcomes in comatose patients. Purpose: To develop and evaluate a prognostic model combining deep learning of head CT scans and clinical information to predict long-term outcomes after sTBI. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of two prospectively collected databases. The model-building set included 537 patients (mean age, 40 years ± 17 [SD]; 422 men) from one institution from November 2002 to December 2018. Transfer learning and curriculum learning were applied to a convolutional neural network using admission head CT to predict mortality and unfavorable outcomes (Glasgow Outcomes Scale scores 1-3) at 6 months. This was combined with clinical input for a holistic fusion model. The models were evaluated using an independent internal test set and an external cohort of 220 patients with sTBI (mean age, 39 years ± 17; 166 men) from 18 institutions in the Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury (TRACK-TBI) study from February 2014 to April 2018. The models were compared with the International Mission on Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in TBI (IMPACT) model and the predictions of three neurosurgeons. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used as the main model performance metric. Results: The fusion model had higher AUCs than did the IMPACT model in the prediction of mortality (AUC, 0.92 [95% CI: 0.86, 0.97] vs 0.80 [95% CI: 0.71, 0.88]; P < .001) and unfavorable outcomes (AUC, 0.88 [95% CI: 0.82, 0.94] vs 0.82 [95% CI: 0.75, 0.90]; P = .04) on the internal data set. For external TRACK-TBI testing, there was no evidence of a significant difference in the performance of any models compared with the IMPACT model (AUC, 0.83; 95% CI: 0.77, 0.90) in the prediction of mortality. The Imaging model (AUC, 0.73; 95% CI: 0.66-0.81; P = .02) and the fusion model (AUC, 0.68; 95% CI: 0.60, 0.76; P = .02) underperformed as compared with the IMPACT model (AUC, 0.83; 95% CI: 0.77, 0.89) in the prediction of unfavorable outcomes. The fusion model outperformed the predictions of the neurosurgeons. Conclusion: A deep learning model of head CT and clinical information can be used to predict 6-month outcomes after severe traumatic brain injury.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85135282035&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85135282035&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1148/radiol.212181
DO - 10.1148/radiol.212181
M3 - Article
C2 - 35471108
AN - SCOPUS:85135282035
SN - 0033-8419
VL - 304
SP - 385
EP - 394
JO - Radiology
JF - Radiology
IS - 2
ER -