Sunil B Nagaraj1, Marleen C Tjepkema-Cloostermans2, Barry J Ruijter3, Jeannette Hofmeijer4, Michel J A M van Putten5. 1. Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Netherlands. Electronic address: s.belur.nagaraj@umcg.nl. 2. Department of Neurology and Clinical Neurophysiology, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, Netherlands. 3. Clinical Neurophysiology Group, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands. 4. Clinical Neurophysiology Group, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands; Department of Neurology, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, Netherlands. 5. Department of Neurology and Clinical Neurophysiology, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, Netherlands; Clinical Neurophysiology Group, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands. Electronic address: m.j.a.m.vanputten@utwente.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Analysis of the electroencephalogram (EEG) background pattern helps predicting neurological outcome of comatose patients after cardiac arrest (CA). Visual analysis may not extract all discriminative information. We present predictive values of the revised Cerebral Recovery Index (rCRI), based on continuous extraction and combination of a large set of evolving quantitative EEG (qEEG) features and machine learning techniques. METHODS: We included 551 subsequent patients from a prospective cohort study on continuous EEG after CA in two hospitals. Outcome at six months was classified as good (Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) 1-2) or poor (CPC 3-5). Forty-four qEEG features (from time, frequency and entropy domain) were selected by the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) method and used in a Random Forests classification system. We trained and evaluated the system with 10-fold cross validation. For poor outcome prediction, the sensitivity at 100% specificity (Se100) and the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC) were used as performance of the prediction model. For good outcome, we used the sensitivity at 95% specificity (Se95). RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-six (47%) patients had a good outcome. The rCRI predicted poor outcome with AUC = 0.94 (95% CI: 0.83-0.91), Se100 = 0.66 (0.65-0.78), and AUC = 0.88 (0.78-0.93), Se100 = 0.60 (0.51-0.75) at 12 and 24 h after CA, respectively. The rCRI predicted good outcome with Se95 = 0.72 (0.61-0.85) and 0.40 (0.30-0.51) at 12 and 24 h after CA, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Results obtained in this study suggest that with machine learning algorithms and large set of qEEG features, it is possible to efficiently monitor patient outcome after CA. We also demonstrate the importance of selection of optimal performance metric to train a classifier model for outcome prediction. SIGNIFICANCE: The rCRI is a sensitive, reliable predictor of neurological outcome of comatose patients after CA.
OBJECTIVE: Analysis of the electroencephalogram (EEG) background pattern helps predicting neurological outcome of comatosepatients after cardiac arrest (CA). Visual analysis may not extract all discriminative information. We present predictive values of the revised Cerebral Recovery Index (rCRI), based on continuous extraction and combination of a large set of evolving quantitative EEG (qEEG) features and machine learning techniques. METHODS: We included 551 subsequent patients from a prospective cohort study on continuous EEG after CA in two hospitals. Outcome at six months was classified as good (Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) 1-2) or poor (CPC 3-5). Forty-four qEEG features (from time, frequency and entropy domain) were selected by the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) method and used in a Random Forests classification system. We trained and evaluated the system with 10-fold cross validation. For poor outcome prediction, the sensitivity at 100% specificity (Se100) and the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC) were used as performance of the prediction model. For good outcome, we used the sensitivity at 95% specificity (Se95). RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-six (47%) patients had a good outcome. The rCRI predicted poor outcome with AUC = 0.94 (95% CI: 0.83-0.91), Se100 = 0.66 (0.65-0.78), and AUC = 0.88 (0.78-0.93), Se100 = 0.60 (0.51-0.75) at 12 and 24 h after CA, respectively. The rCRI predicted good outcome with Se95 = 0.72 (0.61-0.85) and 0.40 (0.30-0.51) at 12 and 24 h after CA, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Results obtained in this study suggest that with machine learning algorithms and large set of qEEG features, it is possible to efficiently monitor patient outcome after CA. We also demonstrate the importance of selection of optimal performance metric to train a classifier model for outcome prediction. SIGNIFICANCE: The rCRI is a sensitive, reliable predictor of neurological outcome of comatosepatients after CA.
Authors: Wei-Long Zheng; Edilberto Amorim; Jin Jing; Ona Wu; Mohammad Ghassemi; Jong Woo Lee; Adithya Sivaraju; Trudy Pang; Susan T Herman; Nicolas Gaspard; Barry J Ruijter; Marleen C Tjepkema-Cloostermans; Jeannette Hofmeijer; Michel J A M van Putten; M Brandon Westover Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2022-04-21 Impact factor: 4.756
Authors: Jerry P Nolan; Claudio Sandroni; Bernd W Böttiger; Alain Cariou; Tobias Cronberg; Hans Friberg; Cornelia Genbrugge; Kirstie Haywood; Gisela Lilja; Véronique R M Moulaert; Nikolaos Nikolaou; Theresa Mariero Olasveengen; Markus B Skrifvars; Fabio Taccone; Jasmeet Soar Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2021-03-25 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Wei-Long Zheng; Edilberto Amorim; Jin Jing; Wendong Ge; Shenda Hong; Ona Wu; Mohammad Ghassemi; Jong Woo Lee; Adithya Sivaraju; Trudy Pang; Susan T Herman; Nicolas Gaspard; Barry J Ruijter; Jimeng Sun; Marleen C Tjepkema-Cloostermans; Jeannette Hofmeijer; Michel J A M van Putten; M Brandon Westover Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2021-10-24 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Jonathan Elmer; Patrick J Coppler; Pawan Solanki; M Brandon Westover; Aaron F Struck; Maria E Baldwin; Michael C Kurz; Clifton W Callaway Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-04-01
Authors: Stanley D T Pham; Hanneke M Keijzer; Barry J Ruijter; Antje A Seeber; Erik Scholten; Gea Drost; Walter M van den Bergh; Francois H M Kornips; Norbert A Foudraine; Albertus Beishuizen; Michiel J Blans; Jeannette Hofmeijer; Michel J A M van Putten; Marleen C Tjepkema-Cloostermans Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2022-03-02 Impact factor: 3.532