Next Article in Journal
Building, Hosting and Recruiting: A Brief Introduction to Running Behavioral Experiments Online
Previous Article in Journal
Self-Concept and Inattention or Hyperactivity–Impulsivity Symptomatology: The Role of Anxiety
Open AccessArticle

Relation of Intracerebral Hemorrhage Descriptors with Clinical Factors

1
Faculty of Medicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 31-008 Kraków, Poland
2
Faculty of Computer Science, Electronics and Telecommunications, AGH University of Science and Technology, 30-059 Kraków, Poland
3
TENSOR - Team of NeuroSurgery-Oriented Research, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 31-008 Kraków, Poland
4
Department of Neurosurgery and Neurotraumatology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 30-688 Kraków, Poland
5
Department of Radiology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 30-688 Kraków, Poland
6
Department of Internal Medicine and Gerontology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 30-688 Kraków, Poland
7
Department of Computer Science, AGH University of Science and Technology, 30-059 Kraków, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Brain Sci. 2020, 10(4), 252; https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10040252
Received: 30 March 2020 / Revised: 16 April 2020 / Accepted: 20 April 2020 / Published: 24 April 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Neuroimaging)
The association between intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) shape and a poor treatment outcome has been established by few authors. We decided to analyze whether computationally assessed hemorrhage shape irregularity is associated with any known predictors of its poor treatment outcome. We retrospectively analyzed 48 patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage. For each patient we calculated Fractal Dimension, Compactness, Fourier Factor and Circle Factor. Our study showed that patients above 65 years old had significantly higher Compactness (0.70 ± 0.19 vs. 0.56 ± 0.20; p < 0.01), Fractal Dimension (0.46 ± 0.22 vs. 0.32 ± 0.20; p = 0.03) and Circle Factor (0.51 ± 0.25 vs. 0.35 ± 0.17; p < 0.01). Patients with hemorrhage growth had significantly higher Compactness (0.74 ± 0.23 vs. 0.58 ± 0.18; p < 0.01), Circle Factor (0.55 ± 0.27 vs. 0.37 ± 0.18; p < 0.01) and Fourier Factor (0.96 ± 0.06 vs. 0.84 ± 0.19; p = 0.03). In conclusion, irregularity resulting from the number of appendices can be a predictor of ICH growth; however, the size of those appendices is also important. Shape roughness better reflects the severity of brain tissue damage and a patient’s general condition. View Full-Text
Keywords: intracerebral hemorrhage; treatment outcome; shape analysis intracerebral hemorrhage; treatment outcome; shape analysis
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Kliś, K.M.; Krzyżewski, R.M.; Kwinta, B.M.; Stachura, K.; Popiela, T.J.; Gąsowski, J.; Długopolski, J. Relation of Intracerebral Hemorrhage Descriptors with Clinical Factors. Brain Sci. 2020, 10, 252.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop