Visual estimation of infarct volume with the reference maps vs. computer-assisted volume measurement with an image analyzer
The “estimated infarct volumes” that were obtained by a vascular neurologist using reference maps correlated well to the “measured infarct volumes” that were obtained by another vascular neurologist using the Analyze software (r=0.977,
P<0.001) (
Figure 2A). A Bland-Altman plot showed good agreement between the two methods; only six of the 130 cases (4.6%) were outside the limits of agreement (
Figure 2B). The disagreement was more prominent when infarct volumes were larger; if the infarct volumes measured using the Analyzebased method were >50 mL, the reference map-based method estimated them to be about 40% smaller.
When we divided the patients according to the DWI slice thickness (3, 5, 6, and 7 mm), a Bland-Altman plot again showed good agreement between the two methods, although the reference map-based method again tended to underestimate infarct volumes when they were large (
Supplementary Figure 3).
The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the reference map-based estimation of infarct volumes in terms of the classification of the infarct volumes as <21, <31, and <51 mL were high (88.9%, 100%, and 95.4%; 85.1%, 100%, and 94.6%; and 86.5%, 100%, and 96.2%, respectively) (
Table 2 and
Figure 2A). The kappa value between the classification by the two methods was 0.75 (
P<0.001), indicating a good agreement. In addition, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the reference map-based estimation of infarct volumes in terms of the classification of the infarct volumes as <70 mL versus ≥70 mL were also high (77.8%, 100%, and 95.4%, respectively).
As described before, we observed that infarct volumes estimated using the reference maps tended to be smaller than infarct volumes measured using an image analyzer. To improve the performance of the infarct volume estimation and classification based on the reference maps, we generated the following simple adjustment formula after considering the aforementioned infarct volume-related non-linear pattern of the errors as well as the cutoff DWI infarct volumes (21, 31, and 51 mL): multiply the sum of all estimated infarct volumes by 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, or 1.4 for the sum value of <21, 21 to <31, 31 to <51, or ≥51 mL, respectively. The adjusted estimated infarct volumes better approximated to the measured infarct volumes (
Figure 3A). The mean difference in the infarct volumes that were provided by the reference map-based method versus the Analyzebased method decreased from 14.5 to 2.6 mL. Only five cases (3.8 %) were outside the limits of agreement (
Figure 3B). Accordingly, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the reference map-based estimation of infarct volumes in terms of the classification of the infarct volumes as <21, <31, and <51 mL became higher (90.7%, 100%, and 96.2%; 93.6%, 98.8%, and 96.9%; and 100%, 100%, and 100%, respectively) (
Figure 3A and
Supplementary Table 1). The kappa value between the classification by the two methods was 0.89 (
P<0.001), indicating an excellent agreement. In addition, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the reference map-based estimation of infarct volumes in terms of the classification of the infarct volumes as <70 mL versus ≥70 mL again became higher (92.3%, 94.2%, and 93.9%, respectively).
The
post hoc adjustment-related improvement of the infarct volume estimation was proved in a validation study using a different set of data (n=30). The adjusted estimated infarct volumes again closely correlated with the measured infarct volumes (r=0.979,
P<0.001) (
Supplementary Figure 4). A Bland-Altman plot again showed a high level of agreement between the two methods; only three of the 30 cases (10%) were outside the limits of agreement (
Supplementary Figure 5). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the reference map-based estimation of infarct volumes in terms of the classification of the infarct volumes as <21, <31, and <51 mL were also high (93.8%, 92.9%, and 93.3%; 91.7%, 94.4%, and 93.3%; and 100%, 100%, and 100%, respectively) (
Supplementary Table 2 and
Supplementary Figure 4). The kappa value between the classification by the two methods was 0.80 (
P<0.001). In addition, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the reference map-based estimation of infarct volumes in terms of the classification of the infarct volumes as <70 mL versus ≥70 mL were all 100%.
Visual estimation of infarct volumes by a vascular neurologist vs. that by a first-year resident
The infarct volumes estimated by a vascular neurologist and a first-year resident using the reference maps were reliable when assessed using a Bland-Altman plot; 10 of 130 (7.7%) patients were outside the limits of agreement, and the mean difference between the two raters was 0.8 mL (
Supplementary Figure 6). In addition, the correlation plot between the estimated volumes by the first-year resident and the measured volumes appeared similar to that by the vascular neurologist (
Supplementary Figure 7). The times taken for estimating infarct volumes were short (1 to 2 min/case) and showed a decreasing trend over experiences: 42, 41, 36, 30, 31, and 29 minuts per 20 patients for the vascular neurologist versus 29, 25, 26, 24, 20, and 16 minutes per 20 patients for the first-year resident (
Supplementary Figure 8).