Arrow Research search

Author name cluster

Alex Rovira

Possible papers associated with this exact author name in Arrow. This page groups case-insensitive exact name matches and is not a full identity disambiguation profile.

3 papers
1 author row

Possible papers

3

YNICL Journal 2019 Journal Article

SVM recursive feature elimination analyses of structural brain MRI predicts near-term relapses in patients with clinically isolated syndromes suggestive of multiple sclerosis

  • Viktor Wottschel
  • Declan T. Chard
  • Christian Enzinger
  • Massimo Filippi
  • Jette L. Frederiksen
  • Claudio Gasperini
  • Antonio Giorgio
  • Maria A. Rocca

Machine learning classification is an attractive approach to automatically differentiate patients from healthy subjects, and to predict future disease outcomes. A clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) is often the first presentation of multiple sclerosis (MS), but it is difficult at onset to predict who will have a second relapse and hence convert to clinically definite MS. In this study, we thus aimed to distinguish CIS converters from non-converters at onset of a CIS, using recursive feature elimination and weight averaging with support vector machines. We also sought to assess the influence of cohort size and cross-validation methods on the accuracy estimate of the classification. We retrospectively collected 400 patients with CIS from six European MAGNIMS MS centres. Patients underwent brain MRI at onset of a CIS according to local standard-of-care protocols. The diagnosis of clinically definite MS at one-year follow-up was the standard against which the accuracy of the model was tested. For each patient, we derived MRI-based features, such as grey matter probability, white matter lesion load, cortical thickness, and volume of specific cortical and white matter regions. Features with little contribution to the classification model were removed iteratively through an interleaved sample bootstrapping and feature averaging approach. Classification of CIS outcome at one-year follow-up was performed with 2-fold, 5-fold, 10-fold and leave-one-out cross-validation for each centre cohort independently and in all patients together. The estimated classification accuracy across centres ranged from 64.9% to 88.1% using 2-fold cross-validation and from 73% to 92.9% using leave-one-out cross-validation. The classification accuracy estimate was higher in single-centre, smaller data sets than in combinations of data sets, being the lowest when all patients were merged together. Regional MRI features such as WM lesions, grey matter probability in the thalamus and the precuneus or cortical thickness in the cuneus and inferior temporal gyrus predicted the occurrence of a second relapse in patients at onset of a CIS using support vector machines. The increased accuracy estimate of the classification achieved with smaller and single-centre samples may indicate a model bias (overfitting) when data points were limited, but also more homogeneous. We provide an overview of classifier performance from a range of cross-validation schemes to give insight into the variability across schemes. The proposed recursive feature elimination approach with weight averaging can be used both in single- and multi-centre data sets in order to bridge the gap between group-level comparisons and making predictions for individual patients.

YNIMG Journal 2017 Journal Article

Performance of five research-domain automated WM lesion segmentation methods in a multi-center MS study

  • Alexandra de Sitter
  • Martijn D. Steenwijk
  • Aurélie Ruet
  • Adriaan Versteeg
  • Yaou Liu
  • Ronald A. van Schijndel
  • Petra J.W. Pouwels
  • Iris D. Kilsdonk

Background and Purpose In vivoidentification of white matter lesions plays a key-role in evaluation of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Automated lesion segmentation methods have been developed to substitute manual outlining, but evidence of their performance in multi-center investigations is lacking. In this work, five research-domain automated segmentation methods were evaluated using a multi-center MS dataset. Methods 70 MS patients (median EDSS of 2. 0 [range 0. 0–6. 5]) were included from a six-center dataset of the MAGNIMS Study Group (www. magnims. eu) which included 2D FLAIR and 3D T1 images with manual lesion segmentation as a reference. Automated lesion segmentations were produced using five algorithms: Cascade; Lesion Segmentation Toolbox (LST) with both the Lesion growth algorithm (LGA) and the Lesion prediction algorithm (LPA); Lesion-Topology preserving Anatomical Segmentation (Lesion-TOADS); and k-Nearest Neighbor with Tissue Type Priors (kNN-TTP). Main software parameters were optimized using a training set (N = 18), and formal testing was performed on the remaining patients (N = 52). To evaluate volumetric agreement with the reference segmentations, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) as well as mean difference in lesion volumes between the automated and reference segmentations were calculated. The Similarity Index (SI), False Positive (FP) volumes and False Negative (FN) volumes were used to examine spatial agreement. All analyses were repeated using a leave-one-center-out design to exclude the center of interest from the training phase to evaluate the performance of the method on ‘unseen’ center. Results Compared to the reference mean lesion volume (4. 85 ± 7. 29 mL), the methods displayed a mean difference of 1. 60 ± 4. 83 (Cascade), 2. 31 ± 7. 66 (LGA), 0. 44 ± 4. 68 (LPA), 1. 76 ± 4. 17 (Lesion-TOADS) and −1. 39 ± 4. 10 mL (kNN-TTP). The ICCs were 0. 755, 0. 713, 0. 851, 0. 806 and 0. 723, respectively. Spatial agreement with reference segmentations was higher for LPA (SI = 0. 37 ± 0. 23), Lesion-TOADS (SI = 0. 35 ± 0. 18) and kNN-TTP (SI = 0. 44 ± 0. 14) than for Cascade (SI = 0. 26 ± 0. 17) or LGA (SI = 0. 31 ± 0. 23). All methods showed highly similar results when used on data from a center not used in software parameter optimization. Conclusion The performance of the methods in this multi-center MS dataset was moderate, but appeared to be robust even with new datasets from centers not included in training the automated methods.

YNIMG Journal 2016 Journal Article

Power estimation for non-standardized multisite studies

  • Anisha Keshavan
  • Friedemann Paul
  • Mona K. Beyer
  • Alyssa H. Zhu
  • Nico Papinutto
  • Russell T. Shinohara
  • William Stern
  • Michael Amann

A concern for researchers planning multisite studies is that scanner and T1-weighted sequence-related biases on regional volumes could overshadow true effects, especially for studies with a heterogeneous set of scanners and sequences. Current approaches attempt to harmonize data by standardizing hardware, pulse sequences, and protocols, or by calibrating across sites using phantom-based corrections to ensure the same raw image intensities. We propose to avoid harmonization and phantom-based correction entirely. We hypothesized that the bias of estimated regional volumes is scaled between sites due to the contrast and gradient distortion differences between scanners and sequences. Given this assumption, we provide a new statistical framework and derive a power equation to define inclusion criteria for a set of sites based on the variability of their scaling factors. We estimated the scaling factors of 20 scanners with heterogeneous hardware and sequence parameters by scanning a single set of 12 subjects at sites across the United States and Europe. Regional volumes and their scaling factors were estimated for each site using Freesurfer's segmentation algorithm and ordinary least squares, respectively. The scaling factors were validated by comparing the theoretical and simulated power curves, performing a leave-one-out calibration of regional volumes, and evaluating the absolute agreement of all regional volumes between sites before and after calibration. Using our derived power equation, we were able to define the conditions under which harmonization is not necessary to achieve 80% power. This approach can inform choice of processing pipelines and outcome metrics for multisite studies based on scaling factor variability across sites, enabling collaboration between clinical and research institutions.

v2026.09.13