Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Dec 10:17:5917-5926.
doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S491697. eCollection 2024.

Clinical-Radiomics Nomogram Model Based on CT Angiography for Prediction of Intracranial Aneurysm Rupture: A Multicenter Study

Affiliations

Clinical-Radiomics Nomogram Model Based on CT Angiography for Prediction of Intracranial Aneurysm Rupture: A Multicenter Study

Xiu-Fen Jia et al. J Multidiscip Healthc. .

Abstract

Objective: Risk estimation of intracranial aneurysm rupture is critical in determining treatment strategy. There is a scarcity of multicenter studies on the predictive power of clinical-radiomics models for aneurysm rupture. This study aims to develop a clinical-radiomics model and explore its additional value in the discrimination of aneurysm rupture.

Methods: A total of 516 aneurysms, including 273 (52.9%) with ruptured aneurysms, were retrospectively enrolled from four hospitals between January 2019 and August 2020. Relevant clinical features were collected, and radiomic characteristics associated with aneurysm were extracted. Subsequently, three models, including a clinical model, a radiomics model, and a clinical-radiomics model were constructed using multivariate logistic regression analysis to effectively classify aneurysm rupture. The performance of models was analyzed through operating characteristic curves, decision curve, and calibration curves analysis. Different models' comparison used DeLong tests. To offer an understandable and intuitive scoring system for assessing rupture risk, we developed a comprehensive nomogram based on the developed model.

Results: Three clinical risk factors and fourteen radiomics features were explored to establish three models. The area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) for the radiomics model was 0.775 (95% CI,0.719-0.830), 0.752 (95% CI,0.663-0.841), 0.747 (95% CI,0.658-0.835) in the training, internal and external test datasets, respectively. The AUC for clinical model was 0.802 (95% CI, 0.749-0.854), 0.736 (95% CI, 0.644-0.828), 0.789 (95% CI, 0.709-0.870) in these three sets, respectively. The clinical-radiomics model showed an AUC of 0.880 (95% CI,0.840-0.920), 0.807 (95% CI,0.728-0.887), 0.815 (95% CI,0.740-0.891) in three datasets respectively. Compared with the radiomics and clinical models, the clinical-radiomics model demonstrated better diagnostic performance (DeLong' test P < 0.05).

Conclusion: The clinical-radiomics model represents a promising approach for predicting rupture of intracranial aneurysms.

Keywords: computed tomography angiography; intracranial aneurysm; nomograms; radiomics; rupture.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The flowchart of this study.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and calibration curve of the radiomics model (R model), clinical model (C model), and clinical radiomics model (CR model). The operating characteristic curves of the three models in the training (A) and internal validation cohort (B) external validation cohort (C). Calibration curve of the three models in the training (D), internal validation and external validation cohorts (E and F).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Decision curve analysis and comprehensive nomogram for intracranial aneurysms in all patients. (A) Nomogram for the prediction of small aneurysm ruptures; decision curve analysis of the clinical model, radiomics model, and clinical–radiomics model with the threshold probability on the x-axis and the net benefit on the y-axis in the (B) training cohort, (C) internal validation cohort, and (D) external validation cohort.

Similar articles

References

    1. An X, He J, Di Y, et al. Intracranial aneurysm rupture risk estimation with multidimensional feature fusion. Front Neurosci. 2022;16:813056. doi:10.3389/fnins.2022.813056 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Boulouis G, Rodriguez-Régent C, Rasolonjatovo EC, et al. Unruptured intracranial aneurysms: an updated review of current concepts for risk factors, detection and management. Rev Neurol. 2017;173(9):542–551. doi:10.1016/j.neurol.2017.05.004 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Abboud T, Rustom J, Bester M, et al. Morphology of ruptured and unruptured intracranial aneurysms. World Neurosurg. 2017;99:610–617. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2016.12.053 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Philipp LR, McCracken DJ, McCracken CE, et al. Comparison between CTA and digital subtraction angiography in the diagnosis of ruptured aneurysms. Neurosurgery. 2017;80(5):769–777. doi:10.1093/neuros/nyw113 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Robert JG, Kinahan PE, Hricak H. Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology. 2015;278. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources