Leslie S Prichep1, Samanwoy Ghosh Dastidar2, Arnaud Jacquin2, William Koppes2, Jonathan Miller2, Thomas Radman2, Brian O'Neil3, Rosanne Naunheim4, J Stephen Huff5. 1. Brain Research Laboratories, Department of Psychiatry, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: Leslie.Prichep@nyumc.org. 2. Algorithm Development Department, BrainScope Co., Inc., Bethesda, MD, USA. 3. Wayne State University, School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Detroit, MI, USA. 4. Washington University School of Medicine, Division of Emergency Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. 5. Departments of Emergency Medicine and Neurology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA; Washington University School of Medicine, Division of Emergency Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need for objective criteria adjunctive to standard clinical assessment of acute Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). Details of the development of a quantitative index to identify structural brain injury based on brain electrical activity will be described. METHODS: Acute closed head injured and normal patients (n=1470) were recruited from 16 US Emergency Departments and evaluated using brain electrical activity (EEG) recorded from forehead electrodes. Patients had high GCS (median=15), and most presented with low suspicion of brain injury. Patients were divided into a CT positive (CT+) group and a group with CT negative findings or where CT scans were not ordered according to standard assessment (CT-/CT_NR). Three different classifier methodologies, Ensemble Harmony, Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO), and Genetic Algorithm (GA), were utilized. RESULTS: Similar performance accuracy was obtained for all three methodologies with an average sensitivity/specificity of 97.5%/59.5%, area under the curves (AUC) of 0.90 and average Negative Predictive Validity (NPV)>99%. Sensitivity was highest for CT+ cases with potentially life threatening hematomas, where two of three classifiers were 100%. CONCLUSION: Similar performance of these classifiers suggests that the optimal separation of the populations was obtained given the overlap of the underlying distributions of features of brain activity. High sensitivity to CT+ injuries (highest in hematomas) and specificity significantly higher than that obtained using ED guidelines for imaging, supports the enhanced clinical utility of this technology and suggests the potential role in the objective, rapid and more optimal triage of TBI patients. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need for objective criteria adjunctive to standard clinical assessment of acute Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). Details of the development of a quantitative index to identify structural brain injury based on brain electrical activity will be described. METHODS: Acute closed head injured and normal patients (n=1470) were recruited from 16 US Emergency Departments and evaluated using brain electrical activity (EEG) recorded from forehead electrodes. Patients had high GCS (median=15), and most presented with low suspicion of brain injury. Patients were divided into a CT positive (CT+) group and a group with CT negative findings or where CT scans were not ordered according to standard assessment (CT-/CT_NR). Three different classifier methodologies, Ensemble Harmony, Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO), and Genetic Algorithm (GA), were utilized. RESULTS: Similar performance accuracy was obtained for all three methodologies with an average sensitivity/specificity of 97.5%/59.5%, area under the curves (AUC) of 0.90 and average Negative Predictive Validity (NPV)>99%. Sensitivity was highest for CT+ cases with potentially life threatening hematomas, where two of three classifiers were 100%. CONCLUSION: Similar performance of these classifiers suggests that the optimal separation of the populations was obtained given the overlap of the underlying distributions of features of brain activity. High sensitivity to CT+ injuries (highest in hematomas) and specificity significantly higher than that obtained using ED guidelines for imaging, supports the enhanced clinical utility of this technology and suggests the potential role in the objective, rapid and more optimal triage of TBIpatients. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Authors: James F Cavanagh; J Kevin Wilson; Rebecca E Rieger; Darbi Gill; James M Broadway; Jacqueline Hope Story Remer; Violet Fratzke; Andrew R Mayer; Davin K Quinn Journal: Neuropsychologia Date: 2019-06-19 Impact factor: 3.139
Authors: James F Cavanagh; Rebecca E Rieger; J Kevin Wilson; Darbi Gill; Lynne Fullerton; Emma Brandt; Andrew R Mayer Journal: Brain Imaging Behav Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 3.978
Authors: Claudio Babiloni; Xianghong Arakaki; Hamed Azami; Karim Bennys; Katarzyna Blinowska; Laura Bonanni; Ana Bujan; Maria C Carrillo; Andrzej Cichocki; Jaisalmer de Frutos-Lucas; Claudio Del Percio; Bruno Dubois; Rebecca Edelmayer; Gary Egan; Stephane Epelbaum; Javier Escudero; Alan Evans; Francesca Farina; Keith Fargo; Alberto Fernández; Raffaele Ferri; Giovanni Frisoni; Harald Hampel; Michael G Harrington; Vesna Jelic; Jaeseung Jeong; Yang Jiang; Maciej Kaminski; Voyko Kavcic; Kerry Kilborn; Sanjeev Kumar; Alice Lam; Lew Lim; Roberta Lizio; David Lopez; Susanna Lopez; Brendan Lucey; Fernando Maestú; William J McGeown; Ian McKeith; Davide Vito Moretti; Flavio Nobili; Giuseppe Noce; John Olichney; Marco Onofrj; Ricardo Osorio; Mario Parra-Rodriguez; Tarek Rajji; Petra Ritter; Andrea Soricelli; Fabrizio Stocchi; Ioannis Tarnanas; John Paul Taylor; Stefan Teipel; Federico Tucci; Mitchell Valdes-Sosa; Pedro Valdes-Sosa; Marco Weiergräber; Gorsev Yener; Bahar Guntekin Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2021-04-15 Impact factor: 16.655
Authors: Joshua Levitt; Muhammad M Edhi; Ryan V Thorpe; Jason W Leung; Mai Michishita; Suguru Koyama; Satoru Yoshikawa; Keith A Scarfo; Alexios G Carayannopoulos; Wendy Gu; Kyle H Srivastava; Bryan A Clark; Rosana Esteller; David A Borton; Stephanie R Jones; Carl Y Saab Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2020-08-29 Impact factor: 6.556