Cargando…
Outcome Prediction of Postanoxic Coma: A Comparison of Automated Electroencephalography Analysis Methods
BACKGROUND: To compare three computer-assisted quantitative electroencephalography (EEG) prediction models for the outcome prediction of comatose patients after cardiac arrest regarding predictive performance and robustness to artifacts. METHODS: A total of 871 continuous EEGs recorded up to 3 days...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer US
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9343315/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35233717 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12028-022-01449-8 |
_version_ | 1784760984716443648 |
---|---|
author | Pham, Stanley D. T. Keijzer, Hanneke M. Ruijter, Barry J. Seeber, Antje A. Scholten, Erik Drost, Gea van den Bergh, Walter M. Kornips, Francois H. M. Foudraine, Norbert A. Beishuizen, Albertus Blans, Michiel J. Hofmeijer, Jeannette van Putten, Michel J. A. M. Tjepkema-Cloostermans, Marleen C. |
author_facet | Pham, Stanley D. T. Keijzer, Hanneke M. Ruijter, Barry J. Seeber, Antje A. Scholten, Erik Drost, Gea van den Bergh, Walter M. Kornips, Francois H. M. Foudraine, Norbert A. Beishuizen, Albertus Blans, Michiel J. Hofmeijer, Jeannette van Putten, Michel J. A. M. Tjepkema-Cloostermans, Marleen C. |
author_sort | Pham, Stanley D. T. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: To compare three computer-assisted quantitative electroencephalography (EEG) prediction models for the outcome prediction of comatose patients after cardiac arrest regarding predictive performance and robustness to artifacts. METHODS: A total of 871 continuous EEGs recorded up to 3 days after cardiac arrest in intensive care units of five teaching hospitals in the Netherlands were retrospectively analyzed. Outcome at 6 months was dichotomized as “good” (Cerebral Performance Category 1–2) or “poor” (Cerebral Performance Category 3–5). Three prediction models were implemented: a logistic regression model using two quantitative features, a random forest model with nine features, and a deep learning model based on a convolutional neural network. Data from two centers were used for training and fivefold cross-validation (n = 663), and data from three other centers were used for external validation (n = 208). Model output was the probability of good outcome. Predictive performances were evaluated by using receiver operating characteristic analysis and the calculation of predictive values. Robustness to artifacts was evaluated by using an artifact rejection algorithm, manually added noise, and randomly flattened channels in the EEG. RESULTS: The deep learning network showed the best overall predictive performance. On the external test set, poor outcome could be predicted by the deep learning network at 24 h with a sensitivity of 54% (95% confidence interval [CI] 44–64%) at a false positive rate (FPR) of 0% (95% CI 0–2%), significantly higher than the logistic regression (sensitivity 33%, FPR 0%) and random forest models (sensitivity 13%, FPR, 0%) (p < 0.05). Good outcome at 12 h could be predicted by the deep learning network with a sensitivity of 78% (95% CI 52–100%) at a FPR of 12% (95% CI 0–24%) and by the logistic regression model with a sensitivity of 83% (95% CI 83–83%) at a FPR of 3% (95% CI 3–3%), both significantly higher than the random forest model (sensitivity 1%, FPR 0%) (p < 0.05). The results of the deep learning network were the least affected by the presence of artifacts, added white noise, and flat EEG channels. CONCLUSIONS: A deep learning model outperformed logistic regression and random forest models for reliable, robust, EEG-based outcome prediction of comatose patients after cardiac arrest. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9343315 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-93433152022-08-03 Outcome Prediction of Postanoxic Coma: A Comparison of Automated Electroencephalography Analysis Methods Pham, Stanley D. T. Keijzer, Hanneke M. Ruijter, Barry J. Seeber, Antje A. Scholten, Erik Drost, Gea van den Bergh, Walter M. Kornips, Francois H. M. Foudraine, Norbert A. Beishuizen, Albertus Blans, Michiel J. Hofmeijer, Jeannette van Putten, Michel J. A. M. Tjepkema-Cloostermans, Marleen C. Neurocrit Care Big Data in Neurocritical Care BACKGROUND: To compare three computer-assisted quantitative electroencephalography (EEG) prediction models for the outcome prediction of comatose patients after cardiac arrest regarding predictive performance and robustness to artifacts. METHODS: A total of 871 continuous EEGs recorded up to 3 days after cardiac arrest in intensive care units of five teaching hospitals in the Netherlands were retrospectively analyzed. Outcome at 6 months was dichotomized as “good” (Cerebral Performance Category 1–2) or “poor” (Cerebral Performance Category 3–5). Three prediction models were implemented: a logistic regression model using two quantitative features, a random forest model with nine features, and a deep learning model based on a convolutional neural network. Data from two centers were used for training and fivefold cross-validation (n = 663), and data from three other centers were used for external validation (n = 208). Model output was the probability of good outcome. Predictive performances were evaluated by using receiver operating characteristic analysis and the calculation of predictive values. Robustness to artifacts was evaluated by using an artifact rejection algorithm, manually added noise, and randomly flattened channels in the EEG. RESULTS: The deep learning network showed the best overall predictive performance. On the external test set, poor outcome could be predicted by the deep learning network at 24 h with a sensitivity of 54% (95% confidence interval [CI] 44–64%) at a false positive rate (FPR) of 0% (95% CI 0–2%), significantly higher than the logistic regression (sensitivity 33%, FPR 0%) and random forest models (sensitivity 13%, FPR, 0%) (p < 0.05). Good outcome at 12 h could be predicted by the deep learning network with a sensitivity of 78% (95% CI 52–100%) at a FPR of 12% (95% CI 0–24%) and by the logistic regression model with a sensitivity of 83% (95% CI 83–83%) at a FPR of 3% (95% CI 3–3%), both significantly higher than the random forest model (sensitivity 1%, FPR 0%) (p < 0.05). The results of the deep learning network were the least affected by the presence of artifacts, added white noise, and flat EEG channels. CONCLUSIONS: A deep learning model outperformed logistic regression and random forest models for reliable, robust, EEG-based outcome prediction of comatose patients after cardiac arrest. Springer US 2022-03-02 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9343315/ /pubmed/35233717 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12028-022-01449-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Big Data in Neurocritical Care Pham, Stanley D. T. Keijzer, Hanneke M. Ruijter, Barry J. Seeber, Antje A. Scholten, Erik Drost, Gea van den Bergh, Walter M. Kornips, Francois H. M. Foudraine, Norbert A. Beishuizen, Albertus Blans, Michiel J. Hofmeijer, Jeannette van Putten, Michel J. A. M. Tjepkema-Cloostermans, Marleen C. Outcome Prediction of Postanoxic Coma: A Comparison of Automated Electroencephalography Analysis Methods |
title | Outcome Prediction of Postanoxic Coma: A Comparison of Automated Electroencephalography Analysis Methods |
title_full | Outcome Prediction of Postanoxic Coma: A Comparison of Automated Electroencephalography Analysis Methods |
title_fullStr | Outcome Prediction of Postanoxic Coma: A Comparison of Automated Electroencephalography Analysis Methods |
title_full_unstemmed | Outcome Prediction of Postanoxic Coma: A Comparison of Automated Electroencephalography Analysis Methods |
title_short | Outcome Prediction of Postanoxic Coma: A Comparison of Automated Electroencephalography Analysis Methods |
title_sort | outcome prediction of postanoxic coma: a comparison of automated electroencephalography analysis methods |
topic | Big Data in Neurocritical Care |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9343315/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35233717 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12028-022-01449-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT phamstanleydt outcomepredictionofpostanoxiccomaacomparisonofautomatedelectroencephalographyanalysismethods AT keijzerhannekem outcomepredictionofpostanoxiccomaacomparisonofautomatedelectroencephalographyanalysismethods AT ruijterbarryj outcomepredictionofpostanoxiccomaacomparisonofautomatedelectroencephalographyanalysismethods AT seeberantjea outcomepredictionofpostanoxiccomaacomparisonofautomatedelectroencephalographyanalysismethods AT scholtenerik outcomepredictionofpostanoxiccomaacomparisonofautomatedelectroencephalographyanalysismethods AT drostgea outcomepredictionofpostanoxiccomaacomparisonofautomatedelectroencephalographyanalysismethods AT vandenberghwalterm outcomepredictionofpostanoxiccomaacomparisonofautomatedelectroencephalographyanalysismethods AT kornipsfrancoishm outcomepredictionofpostanoxiccomaacomparisonofautomatedelectroencephalographyanalysismethods AT foudrainenorberta outcomepredictionofpostanoxiccomaacomparisonofautomatedelectroencephalographyanalysismethods AT beishuizenalbertus outcomepredictionofpostanoxiccomaacomparisonofautomatedelectroencephalographyanalysismethods AT blansmichielj outcomepredictionofpostanoxiccomaacomparisonofautomatedelectroencephalographyanalysismethods AT hofmeijerjeannette outcomepredictionofpostanoxiccomaacomparisonofautomatedelectroencephalographyanalysismethods AT vanputtenmicheljam outcomepredictionofpostanoxiccomaacomparisonofautomatedelectroencephalographyanalysismethods AT tjepkemacloostermansmarleenc outcomepredictionofpostanoxiccomaacomparisonofautomatedelectroencephalographyanalysismethods |