Submitted:
22 September 2023
Posted:
26 September 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
- Model-based versus post hoc explanation: Model-based explanation entails the utilization of intelligible yet sufficiently sophisticated models, exemplified by linear regression, which effectively capture and elucidate the relationships between input and output variables. Conversely, post hoc explanation aims at analyzing a trained model to achieve insight into learned relationships. Saliency mapping, also called visual explanation, is the most common post hoc approach in medical image analysis [31].
- Model-specific versus model-agnostic explanation: Model-specific explanation techniques are constrained to specific model categories, whereas model-agnostic explanation methods operate independently of the neural network's architectural choice, focusing solely on the input and output of the neural network.
- Local versus global explanation: Global explanation offers overarching insights by delivering general relationships. In contrast, local explanation focuses on elucidating the rationale behind individual inputs, providing a detailed explanation for the certain dataset.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Patients
2.2. Ethics approval
2.3. Workflow
2.4. CFD simulation
2.5. Parameter deviation for statistical analysis
2.6. Statistical analysis
2.7. Data preparation and augmentation for DNN
2.8. DNN model architecture and training
2.9. Evaluation of DNN model
2.10. Data and code availability
3. Results
3.1. Patient characteristics
3.2. Model training and performance
3.3. Model explainability
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Brisman, J.L.; Song, J.K.; Newell, D.W. Cerebral Aneurysms. N. Engl. J. Med. 2006, 355, 928–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wiebers, D.O. Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms: Natural History, Clinical Outcome, and Risks of Surgical and Endovascular Treatment. The Lancet 2003, 362, 103–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Le Roux, P.D.; Winn, H.R.; Newell, D.W. Management of Cerebral Aneurysms; WB Saunders Company, 2004.
- Hwang, J.S.; Hyun, M.K.; Lee, H.J.; Choi, J.E.; Kim, J.H.; Lee, N.R.; Kwon, J.-W.; Lee, E. Endovascular Coiling versus Neurosurgical Clipping in Patients with Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysm: A Systematic Review. BMC Neurol. 2012, 12, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nambu, I.; Misaki, K.; Uchiyama, N.; Mohri, M.; Suzuki, T.; Takao, H.; Murayama, Y.; Futami, K.; Kawamura, T.; Inoguchi, Y.; et al. High Pressure in Virtual Postcoiling Model Is a Predictor of Internal Carotid Artery Aneurysm Recurrence after Coiling. Neurosurgery 2019, 84, 607–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Misaki, K.; Uno, T.; Nambu, I.; Yoshikawa, A.; Kamide, T.; Uchiyama, N.; Nakada, M. Prediction of Post-Embolization Recurrence of Anterior Communicating Aneurysms with A1 Segment Asymmetry by Fluid Dynamic Analysis. J. Neuroendovascular Ther. 2021, 15, 71–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uno, T.; Misaki, K.; Nambu, I.; Yoshikawa, A.; Kamide, T.; Uchiyama, N.; Nakada, M. Prediction of Internal Carotid Artery Aneurysm Recurrence by Pressure Difference at the Coil Mass Surface. Neuroradiology 2021, 63, 593–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.; Lin, B.; Zhou, J.; Chen, L.; Yang, Y.; Zhao, B. Morphological Predictors of Middle Cerebral Artery Bifurcation Aneurysm Rupture. Clin. Neurol. Neurosurg. 2020, 192, 105708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ujiie, H.; Tachi, H.; Hiramatsu, O.; Hazel, A.L.; Matsumoto, T.; Ogasawara, Y.; Nakajima, H.; Hori, T.; Takakura, K.; Kajiya, F. Effects of Size and Shape (Aspect Ratio) on the Hemodynamics of Saccular Aneurysms: A Possible Index for Surgical Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysms. Neurosurgery 1999, 45, 119–130. [Google Scholar]
- Ujiie, H.; Tamano, Y.; Sasaki, K.; Hori, T. Is the Aspect Ratio a Reliable Index for Predicting the Rupture of a Saccular Aneurysm? Neurosurgery 2001, 48, 495–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoh, B.L.; Sistrom, C.L.; Firment, C.S.; Fautheree, G.L.; Velat, G.J.; Whiting, J.H.; Reavey-Cantwell, J.F.; Lewis, S.B. Bottleneck Factor and Height-Width Ratio: Association with Ruptured Aneurysms in Patients with Multiple Cerebral Aneurysms. Neurosurgery 2007, 61, 716–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dhar, S.; Tremmel, M.; Mocco, J.; Kim, M.; Yamamoto, J.; Siddiqui, A.H.; Hopkins, L.N.; Meng, H. Morphology Paramaters for Intracranial Aneurysm Rupture Risk Assessment. Neurosurgery 2008, 63, 185–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Huang, Z.-Q.; Meng, Z.-H.; Hou, Z.-J.; Huang, S.-Q.; Chen, J.-N.; Yu, H.; Feng, L.-J.; Wang, Q.-J.; Li, P.-A.; Wen, Z.-B. Geometric Parameter Analysis of Ruptured and Unruptured Aneurysms in Patients with Symmetric Bilateral Intracranial Aneurysms: A Multicenter CT Angiography Study. Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2016, 37, 1413–1417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Neki, H.; Kohyama, S.; Otsuka, T.; Yonezawa, A.; Ishihara, S.; Yamane, F. Optimal First Coil Selection to Avoid Aneurysmal Recanalization in Endovascular Intracranial Aneurysmal Coiling. J. Neurointerventional Surg. 2018, 10, 50–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cebral, J.R.; Castro, M.A.; Burgess, J.E.; Pergolizzi, R.S.; Sheridan, M.J.; Putman, C.M. Characterization of Cerebral Aneurysms for Assessing Risk of Rupture by Using Patient-Specific Computational Hemodynamics Models. Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2005, 26, 2550–2559. [Google Scholar]
- Cebral, J.R.; Mut, F.; Sforza, D.; Löhner, R.; Scrivano, E.; Lylyk, P.; Putman, C. Clinical Application of Image-Based CFD for Cerebral Aneurysms. Int. J. Numer. Methods Biomed. Eng. 2011, 27, 977–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cebral, J.R.; Duan, X.; Gade, P.S.; Chung, B.J.; Mut, F.; Aziz, K.; Robertson, A.M. Regional Mapping of Flow and Wall Characteristics of Intracranial Aneurysms. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2016, 44, 3553–3567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cebral, J.R.; Mut, F.; Gade, P.; Cheng, F.; Tobe, Y.; Frosen, J.; Robertson, A.M. Combining Data from Multiple Sources to Study Mechanisms of Aneurysm Disease: Tools and Techniques. Int. J. Numer. Methods Biomed. Eng. 2018, 34, e3133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sforza, D.M.; Putman, C.M.; Cebral, J.R. Hemodynamics of Cerebral Aneurysms. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 2009, 41, 91–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Q.; Jing, L.; Liu, J.; Wang, K.; Zhang, Y.; Paliwal, N.; Meng, H.; Wang, Y.; Wang, S.; Yang, X. Predisposing Factors for Recanalization of Cerebral Aneurysms after Endovascular Embolization: A Multivariate Study. J. NeuroInterventional Surg. 2018, 10, 252–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fujimura, S.; Takao, H.; Suzuki, T.; Dahmani, C.; Ishibashi, T.; Mamori, H.; Yamamoto, M.; Murayama, Y. A New Combined Parameter Predicts Re-Treatment for Coil-Embolized Aneurysms: A Computational Fluid Dynamics Multivariable Analysis Study. J. NeuroInterventional Surg. 2018, 10, 791–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paliwal, N.; Jaiswal, P.; Tutino, V.M.; Shallwani, H.; Davies, J.M.; Siddiqui, A.H.; Rai, R.; Meng, H. Outcome Prediction of Intracranial Aneurysm Treatment by Flow Diverters Using Machine Learning. Neurosurg. Focus 2018, 45, E7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kallmes, D.F. Point: CFD—Computational Fluid Dynamics or Confounding Factor Dissemination. Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2012, 33, 395–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xiang, J.; Tutino, V.M.; Snyder, K.V.; Meng, H. CFD: Computational Fluid Dynamics or Confounding Factor Dissemination? The Role of Hemodynamics in Intracranial Aneurysm Rupture Risk Assessment. Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2014, 35, 1849–1857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Qi, C.R.; Su, H.; Mo, K.; Guibas, L.J. Pointnet: Deep Learning on Point Sets for 3d Classification and Segmentation. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition; pp. 2017652–660.
- Chen, R.; Mo, X.; Chen, Z.; Feng, P.; Li, H. An Integrated Model Combining Machine Learning and Deep Learning Algorithms for Classification of Rupture Status of IAs. Front. Neurol. 2022, 13, 868395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- LIAO, J.; SAKAMOTO, J.; MISAKI, K.; SIRITANAWAN, P.; KOTANI, K. Prediction of Post-Embolization Recurrence in Internal Carotid-Posterior Communicating Aneurysms with Vel-PointNet. J. Biomech. Sci. Eng. 2023, advpub, 22–00471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Weng, Y.; Lund, J. Applications of Explainable Artificial Intelligence in Diagnosis and Surgery. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Adadi, A.; Berrada, M. Peeking Inside the Black-Box: A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). IEEE Access 2018, 6, 52138–52160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murdoch, W.J.; Singh, C.; Kumbier, K.; Abbasi-Asl, R.; Yu, B. Definitions, Methods, and Applications in Interpretable Machine Learning. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2019, 116, 22071–22080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van der Velden, B.H.M.; Kuijf, H.J.; Gilhuijs, K.G.A.; Viergever, M.A. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) in Deep Learning-Based Medical Image Analysis. Med. Image Anal. 2022, 79, 102470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darflinger, R.; Thompson, L.A.; Zhang, Z.; Chao, K. Recurrence, Retreatment, and Rebleed Rates of Coiled Aneurysms with Respect to the Raymond–Roy Scale: A Meta-Analysis. J. NeuroInterventional Surg. 2016, 8, 507–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roy, D.; Milot, G.; Raymond, J. Endovascular Treatment of Unruptured Aneurysms. Stroke 2001, 32, 1998–2004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zheng, T.; Chen, C.; Yuan, J.; Li, B.; Ren, K. PointCloud Saliency Maps.; 2019; pp. 1598–1606.
- Ford, M.D.; Alperin, N.; Lee, S.H.; Holdsworth, D.W.; Steinman, D.A. Characterization of Volumetric Flow Rate Waveforms in the Normal Internal Carotid and Vertebral Arteries. Physiol. Meas. 2005, 26, 477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Virtanen, P.; Gommers, R.; Oliphant, T.E.; Haberland, M.; Reddy, T.; Cournapeau, D.; Burovski, E.; Peterson, P.; Weckesser, W.; Bright, J.; et al. SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python. Nat. Methods 2020, 17, 261–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Johnson, J.M.; Khoshgoftaar, T.M. Survey on Deep Learning with Class Imbalance. J. Big Data 2019, 6, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saito, T.; Rehmsmeier, M. The Precision-Recall Plot Is More Informative than the ROC Plot When Evaluating Binary Classifiers on Imbalanced Datasets. PloS One 2015, 10, e0118432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pedregosa, F.; Varoquaux, G.; Gramfort, A.; Michel, V.; Thirion, B.; Grisel, O.; Blondel, M.; Prettenhofer, P.; Weiss, R.; Dubourg, V. Scikit-Learn: Machine Learning in Python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2011, 12, 2825–2830. [Google Scholar]
- Cebral, X.J.R.; Detmer, X.F.; Chung, X.B.J.; Choque-Velasquez, X.J.; Rezai, X.B.; Lehto, X.H.; Tulamo, X.R.; Hernesniemi, X.J.; Niemela, X.M.; Yu, X.A.; et al. Local Hemodynamic Conditions Associated with Focal Changes in the Intracranial Aneurysm Wall. 7.
- Sadasivan, C.; Fiorella, D.J.; Woo, H.H.; Lieber, B.B. Physical Factors Effecting Cerebral Aneurysm Pathophysiology. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2013, 41, 1347–1365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meng, H.; Tutino, V.M.; Xiang, J.; Siddiqui, A. High WSS or Low WSS? Complex Interactions of Hemodynamics with Intracranial Aneurysm Initiation, Growth, and Rupture: Toward a Unifying Hypothesis. Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2014, 35, 1254–1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nixon, A.M.; Gunel, M.; Sumpio, B.E. The Critical Role of Hemodynamics in the Development of Cerebral Vascular Disease: A Review. J. Neurosurg. 2010, 112, 1240–1253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saitta, S.; Maga, L.; Armour, C.; Votta, E.; O’Regan, D.P.; Salmasi, M.Y.; Athanasiou, T.; Weinsaft, J.W.; Xu, X.Y.; Pirola, S.; et al. Data-Driven Generation of 4D Velocity Profiles in the Aneurysmal Ascending Aorta. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 2023, 233, 107468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suzuki, T.; Genkai, N.; Nomura, T.; Abe, H. Assessing the Hemodynamics in Residual Cavities of Intracranial Aneurysm after Coil Embolization with Combined Computational Flow Dynamics and Silent Magnetic Resonance Angiography. J. Stroke Cerebrovasc. Dis. 2020, 29, 105290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Selvaraju, R.R.; Cogswell, M.; Das, A.; Vedantam, R.; Parikh, D.; Batra, D. Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-Based Localization. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 2020, 128, 336–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schweizer, L.; Seegerer, P.; Kim, H.; Saitenmacher, R.; Muench, A.; Barnick, L.; Osterloh, A.; Dittmayer, C.; Jödicke, R.; Pehl, D.; et al. Analysing Cerebrospinal Fluid with Explainable Deep Learning: From Diagnostics to Insights. Neuropathol. Appl. Neurobiol. 2023, 49, e12866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]







| Stable (N = 49) | Recanalized (N = 9) | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical features | |||
| Age | 64±13 | 65±12 | 0.897 |
| Sex | Female | 44 | 7 | 0.645 |
| Rupture status | 8 | 4 | 0.142 |
| Locations | ICPC | 38 | 8 | 0.848 |
| Locations | IC paraclinoid | 8 | 1 | |
| Locations | IC-Oph | 2 | 0 | |
| Locations | C1 | 1 | 0 | |
| Morphological features | |||
| Max size | 8.241±3.250 | 11.344±4.330 | 0.018 |
| Neck width | 4.825±1.468 | 6.311±2.353 | 0.117 |
| Aspect ratio | 1.279±0.483 | 1.409±0.489 | 0.469 |
| Bottleneck | 1.630±0.655 | 1.731±0.564 | 0.673 |
| Height | 6.077±2.767 | 8.444±3.855 | 0.035 |
| Size ratio | 2.047±0.883 | 2.456±1.026 | 0.226 |
| Diam Inflow | 2.570±1.126 | 2.534±1.187 | 0.931 |
| Area Inflow | 9.517±4.235 | 11.848±6.148 | 0.174 |
| Area Neck | 22.616±14.350 | 34.336±19.490 | 0.042 |
| Area Ratio | 0.494±0.235 | 0.385±0.160 | 0.193 |
| Pcom | 1.071±0.826 | 1.672±1.246 | 0.219 |
| Area Pcom | 1.436±1.447 | 3.415±3.682 | 0.170 |
| VER | 24.188±4.914 | 20.967±7.970 | 0.118 |
| Hemodynamic features | |||
| volvel | 0.439±0.165 | 0.299±0.161 | 0.025 |
| PD | 0.404±0.631 | 0.903±0.765 | 0.043 |
| P | 1.031±0.049 | 1.046±0.047 | 0.401 |
| PP | 0.043±0.038 | 0.055±0.037 | 0.425 |
| Pdyn | 0.075±0.077 | 0.036±0.021 | 0.140 |
| WSS | 9.535±6.202 | 6.176±2.794 | 0.123 |
| FR | 0.001±0.001 | 0.002±0.004 | 0.060 |
| AUROC | Opt. cutoff | Sensitivity | Specificity | AUPRC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| On the training dataset | |||||
| pre_vel | 0.991 (0.980 - 0.999) | 0.988 | 0.900 | 1.000 | 0.992 (0.976 - 0.999) |
| pre_P | 0.564 (0.462 - 0.677) | 0.833 | 0.450 | 0.775 | 0.526 (0.411 - 0.666) |
| pre_WSS | 0.829 (0.748 - 0.904) | 0.619 | 0.775 | 0.800 | 0.800 (0.692 - 0.890) |
| post_vel | 1.000 (1.000 - 1.000) | 0.999 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 (1.000 - 1.000) |
| post_P | 0.586 (0.471 - 0.687) | 0.319 | 0.450 | 0.800 | 0.564 (0.442 - 0.714) |
| post_WSS | 0.791 (0.706 - 0.863) | 0.452 | 0.575 | 0.900 | 0.817 (0.722 - 0.890) |
| On the testing dataset | |||||
| pre_vel | 1.000 (1.000 - 1.000) | 4.457 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 (1.000 - 1.000) |
| pre_P | 1.000 (1.000 - 1.000) | -0.756 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 (1.000 - 1.000) |
| pre_WSS | 0.667 (0.455 - 0.900) | -0.049 | 1.000 | 0.667 | 0.183 (0.071 - 0.417) |
| post_vel | 0.917 (0.769 - 1.000) | -2.792 | 1.000 | 0.917 | 0.417 (0.167 - 1.000) |
| post_P | 0.792 (0.462 - 1.000) | 0.646 | 1.000 | 0.583 | 0.613 (0.071 - 1.000) |
| post_WSS | 0.542 (0.231 - 0.846) | -1.151 | 1.000 | 0.333 | 0.140 (0.045 - 0.352) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).