Back to all available

Preliminary evaluation of a fractal-based collateral biomarker for thrombectomy candidate selection in acute ischemic stroke: A retrospective study

emergency-and-critical-care
neurology
radiology-and-medical-imaging
translational-medicine

Abstract

Background: Collateral circulation plays a supportive role in stroke recovery, particularly among patients undergoing endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). While multiphase computed tomography angiography (mCTA)-based visual collateral scoring (vCS-mCTA) is widely used, its subjectivity and interobserver variability limit consistency. This preliminary study aimed to evaluate whether the mean fractal dimension ratio (mFD), derived from single-phase CTA (sCTA)-equivalent images, could serve as an objective and reproducible biomarker for collateral status assessment.

Materials and Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed 54 patients with acute ischemic stroke who underwent EVT. The mFD was calculated using semi-automated fractal analysis of segmented vessels from the first phase of mCTA images. Collateral status was assessed using both sCTA and mCTA Menon visual scoring systems. The primary outcome was favorable 90-day functional status (modified Rankin Scale ≤2).

Results: The sCTA-based visual collateral score (vCS-sCTA) was not significantly associated with clinical outcome. In contrast, higher mFD were significantly associated with favorable outcomes and demonstrated concordance with vCS-mCTA. In multivariable analysis, mFD remained an independent predictor after adjusting for clinical covariates. Its predictive performance was comparable to vCS-mCTA and superior to single-phase visual scoring.

Conclusion: The mFD derived from sCTA-equivalent images may offer a practical and reproducible imaging biomarker for collateral assessment, offering predictive performance comparable to vCS-mCTA. As it does not rely on multiphase acquisition or subjective interpretation, mFD may enhance thrombectomy candidate selection, particularly in resource-limited or time-constrained settings.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].