Usability and Clinical Effectiveness of an Interpretable Deep Learning Framework for Post-Hepatectomy Liver Failure Prediction

February 5, 2024 updated by: Maastricht University

Usability and Clinical Effectiveness of an Interpretable Deep Learning Framework (VAE-MILP) Using Counterfactual Explanations and Layerwise Relevance Propagation Framework for Post-Hepatectomy Liver Failure Prediction

The goal of this in-silico clinical trial is to learn about the usability and clinical effectiveness of an interpretable deep learning framework (VAE-MLP) using counterfactual explanations and layerwise relevance propagation for prediction of post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The main questions it aims to answer are:

  • To investigate the usability of the VAE-MLP framework for explanation of the deep learning model.
  • To investigate the clinical effectiveness of VAE-MLP framework for prediction of post-hepatectomy liver failure in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

In the usability trial the clinicians and radiologists will be shown the counterfactual explanations and layerwise relevance propagation (LRP) plots to evaluate the usability of the framework.

In the clinical trial the clinicians and radiologists will make the prediction under two different conditions: with model explanation and without model explanation with a washout period of at least 14 days to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of the explanation framework.

Study Overview

Detailed Description

Post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) is a severe complication after liver resection. It is important to develop an interpretable model for predicting PHLF in order to facilitate effective collaboration with clinicians for decision-making. Two-dimensional shear wave elastography (2D-SWE) is a liver stiffness measurement (LSM) technology that was proven to be useful in liver fibrosis staging. Therefore 2D-SWE shows the potential value for liver function assessment and PHLF prediction. 2D-SWE images display color-coded tissue stiffness map of liver parenchyma, with red representing a solid tissue (higher stiffness) and blue representing a soft tissue (lower stiffness). Routine analysis of 2D-SWE fails to fully utilize all information available in the images and also suffers from inter-observer variance in choosing the optimal quantification region.

Deep learning (DL) has demonstrated state-of-the-art performance on many medical imaging tasks such as classification or segmentation. However, despite significant progress in DL, the clinical translation of DL tools has so far been limited, partially due to a lack of interpretability of models, the so-called "black box" problem. Interpretability of DL systems is important for fostering clinical trust as well as timely correcting any faulty processes in the algorithms.

Here, the investigators present a novel interpretable DL framework (VAE-MLP) which incorporates counterfactual analysis for the explanation of 2D medical images and LRP for the explanation of feature attributions of both medical images and clinical variables.

The goal of this in-silico clinical trial is to learn about the usability and clinical effectiveness of an interpretable deep learning framework (VAE-MLP) using counterfactual explanations and layerwise relevance propagation for prediction of post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. The main questions it aims to answer are:

  • To investigate the usability of the the interpretable deep learning framework (VAE-MLP) for explanation of the deep learning model.
  • To investigate the clinical effectiveness of the interpretable deep learning framework (VAE-MLP) for prediction of post-hepatectomy liver failure in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

In the usability trial the clinicians and radiologists will be shown the counterfactual explanations and layerwise relevance propagation plots of 6 examples. The score of the Likert scale of a designed questionnaire is used to evaluate the usability of the framework.

In the clinical trial the clinicians and radiologists will make the prediction under two different conditions: with model explanation and without model explanation with a washout period of at least 14 days. The accuracy, sensitivity and specificity is used to compare the clinical effectiveness of the explanation framework.

Study Type

Observational

Enrollment (Estimated)

80

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Locations

    • Guangdong
      • Guangzhou, Guangdong, China, 510000
        • Recruiting
        • The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University
        • Contact:

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Child
  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sampling Method

Non-Probability Sample

Study Population

Patients who underwent curative liver resection for HCC.

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  1. patients with treatment-naive and resectable HCC;
  2. performance status Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (PS) score 0-1.

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. liver resection was not performed;
  2. pathological diagnosis of non-HCC;
  3. failure in liver stiffness measurement defined as the elastography color map was less than 75% filled or interquartile range (IQR)/median > 30%;
  4. immune-active chronic hepatitis indicated by an elevation of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels ≥ 2×upper limit of normal (ULN);
  5. obstructive jaundice or dilated intrahepatic bile ducts with a diameter of >3 mm;
  6. hypoalbuminemia, hyperbilirubinemia, or coagulopathy not related to the liver.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

Cohorts and Interventions

Group / Cohort
Intervention / Treatment
Patients with HCC
Patients who underwent curative liver resection for HCC in the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University in China.
The radiologist and clinicians will be provided the model prediction results with the explanation of the model and they will fill in a questionnaire to evaluate the usability of the interpretable framework.
The radiologist and clinicians will be provided the model prediction results without the explanation of the model and they will be asked to give their own prediction.
The radiologist and clinicians will be provided the model prediction results with the explanation of the model and they will be asked to give their own prediction.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Clinical effectiveness of the explanation framework
Time Frame: From enrollment to the end of trial at 8 weeks
The accuracy, sensitivity and specificity will be compared between the prediction made with and without the explanation of the DL model to determine the clinical effectiveness of the explanation framework.
From enrollment to the end of trial at 8 weeks

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Usability of the explanation framework
Time Frame: From enrollment to the end of trial at 8 weeks
The score of the Likert scale of a designed questionnaire is used to evaluate the usability of the framework. Each item is given a score from 1 to 5. Higher scores mean a better outcome.
From enrollment to the end of trial at 8 weeks

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Philippe Lambin, Maastricht University

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

December 10, 2023

Primary Completion (Estimated)

February 28, 2024

Study Completion (Estimated)

March 15, 2024

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

September 4, 2023

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

September 4, 2023

First Posted (Actual)

September 11, 2023

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Estimated)

February 6, 2024

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

February 5, 2024

Last Verified

February 1, 2024

More Information

Terms related to this study

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

UNDECIDED

IPD Plan Description

Individual participant data (IPD) can be shared if asked

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Subscribe