Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Quantitative analysis of EEG reactivity for neurological prognostication after cardiac arrest.
Admiraal, M M; Ramos, L A; Delgado Olabarriaga, S; Marquering, H A; Horn, J; van Rootselaar, A F.
Afiliação
  • Admiraal MM; Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Neurology/Clinical Neurophysiology, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: m.m.admiraal@amsterdamumc.nl.
  • Ramos LA; Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department Biomedical Engineering & Physics, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
  • Delgado Olabarriaga S; Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
  • Marquering HA; Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department Biomedical Engineering & Physics, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
  • Horn J; Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Laboratory for Experimental Intensive Care and Anesthesiology, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Intensive Care, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
  • van Rootselaar AF; Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Neurology/Clinical Neurophysiology, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Clin Neurophysiol ; 132(9): 2240-2247, 2021 09.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34315065
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

To test whether 1) quantitative analysis of EEG reactivity (EEG-R) using machine learning (ML) is superior to visual analysis, and 2) combining quantitative analyses of EEG-R and EEG background pattern increases prognostic value for prediction of poor outcome after cardiac arrest (CA).

METHODS:

Several types of ML models were trained with twelve quantitative features derived from EEG-R and EEG background data of 134 adult CA patients. Poor outcome was a Cerebral Performance Category score of 3-5 within 6 months.

RESULTS:

The Random Forest (RF) trained on EEG-R showed the highest AUC of 83% (95-CI 80-86) of tested ML classifiers, predicting poor outcome with 46% sensitivity (95%-CI 40-51) and 89% specificity (95%-CI 86-92). Visual analysis of EEG-R had 80% sensitivity and 65% specificity. The RF was also the best classifier for EEG background (AUC 85%, 95%-CI 83-88) at 24 h after CA, with 62% sensitivity (95%-CI 57-67) and 84% specificity (95%-CI 79-88). Combining EEG-R and EEG background RF classifiers reduced the number of false positives.

CONCLUSIONS:

Quantitative EEG-R using ML predicts poor outcome with higher specificity, but lower sensitivity compared to visual analysis of EEG-R, and is of some additional value to ML on EEG background data.

SIGNIFICANCE:

Quantitative EEG-R using ML is a promising alternative to visual analysis and of some added value to ML on EEG background data.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Etiology_studies / Prognostic_studies Limite: Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Etiology_studies / Prognostic_studies Limite: Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article