Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 10, 2025
The Helsinki Rat Microsurgical Sidewall Aneurysm Model
Published on: October 12, 2014
Artificial intelligence applied to development of predictive stability model for intracranial aneurysms
Junmin Tao1,2, Wei Wei2,3, Meiying Song1
1Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Dalian Medical University, No. 9, West Section of Lvshun South Road, Lvshunkou District, Dalian, Liaoning Province, China.
Background:
We aimed to develop multiple machine learning models to predict the risk of early intracranial aneurysms (IAs) rupture, evaluate and compare the performance of predictive models.
Methods:
Information related to patients diagnosed with IA by CT angiography and clinicians in Central hospital of Dalian University of Technology from January 2010 to June 2022 was collected, including clinical characteristics, blood indicators and IA morphological parameters. IA with rupture or maximum growth ≥ 0.5 mm within 1 month of first diagnosis was considered unstable. The relevant factors affecting IA stability were screened and predictive models were developed based on the above three levels, including random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM), and artificial neural network (ANN). Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and area under curve (AUC) value were used to evaluate the predictive models.
Results:
A total of 989 IA patients were included in the study, including 561 stable patients and 428 unstable patients. For RF models, the training set showed that sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and the AUC values were 72.8-83.7%, 76.9-86.9%, 75.1-84.1% and 0.748 (0.719-0.778)-0.839 (0.814-0.864), respectively; after test set validation, the results were 71.9-78.8%, 75.0-84.0%, 73.6-81.1% and 0.734 (0.688-0.781)-0.809 (0.768-0.850), respectively. For SVM models, the training set were 66.0-80.2%, 76.5-85.5%, 71.7-82.3%, 0.712 (0.682-0.743)-0.913 (0.884-0.924), respectively; the test set were 44.2-78.3%, 63.4-84.4%, 57.9-80.9%, 0.699 (0.651-0.747)-0.806 (0.765-0.848), respectively. For ANN models, the training set were 66.8-83.0%, 75.3-82.3%, 71.6-82.1%, 0.783 (0.757-0.808)-0.897 (0.879-0.914); the test set were 63.1-76.3%, 65.5-84.0%, 64.4-80.6%, 0.680 (0.593-0.694)-0.860 (0.821-0.899). The results of variable importance showed that age, white blood cell count (WBC) and uric acid (UA) played an important role in predicting the stability of IA.
Conclusions:
The predictive stability models of IA based on three artificial intelligence methods shows good clinical application. Age, WBC and UA played an important role in predicting the IA stability, and were potentially important predictors.
