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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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.
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