| Literature DB >> 30443583 |
Giovanna Maria Dimitri1, Shruti Agrawal1, Adam Young1, Joseph Donnelly1, Xiuyun Liu1, Peter Smielewski1, Peter Hutchinson1, Marek Czosnyka1, Pietro Lió1, Christina Haubrich1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We present a multiplex network model for the analysis of Intracranial Pressure (ICP) and Heart Rate (HR) behaviour after severe brain traumatic injuries in pediatric patients. The ICP monitoring is of vital importance for checking life threathening conditions, and understanding the behaviour of these parameters is crucial for a successful intervention of the clinician. Our own observations, exhibit cross-talks interaction events happening between HR and ICP, i.e. transients in which both the ICP and the HR showed an increase of 20% with respect to their baseline value in the window considered. We used a complex event processing methodology, to investigate the relationship between HR and ICP, after traumatic brain injuries (TBI). In particular our goal has been to analyse events of simultaneous increase by HR and ICP (i.e. cross-talks), modelling the two time series as a unique multiplex network system (Lacasa et al., Sci Rep 5:15508-15508, 2014). METHODS AND DATA: We used a complex network approach based on visibility graphs (Lacasa et al., Sci Rep 5:15508-15508, 2014) to model and study the behaviour of our system and to investigate how and if network topological measures can give information on the possible detection of crosstalks events taking place in the system. Each time series was converted as a layer in a multiplex network. We therefore studied the network structure, focusing on the behaviour of the two time series in the cross-talks events windows detected. We used a dataset of 27 TBI pediatric patients, admitted to Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) between August 2012 and December 2014.Entities:
Keywords: ICP; Multiplex time series network; Visibility graph
Year: 2017 PMID: 30443583 PMCID: PMC6214250 DOI: 10.1007/s41109-017-0050-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Appl Netw Sci ISSN: 2364-8228
Number of cross talks events for each patient detected by the naive sliding window approach
| P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 | P6 | P7 | P8 | P9 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15 | 35 | 66 | 20 | 1 | 23 | 29 | 43 | 59 |
| P10 | P11 | P12 | P13 | P14 | P15 | P16 | P17 | P18 |
| 69 | 22 | 142 | 31 | 29 | 7 | 36 | 1 | 0 |
| P19 | P20 | P21 | P22 | P23 | P24 | P25 | P26 | P27 |
| 1 | 20 | 184 | 57 | 2 | 15 | 0 | 16 | 18 |
Fig. 1Recurrence Plots. The figure shows the recurrence plots of the ICP for a patient.The parameters used for the recurrence plots were (d=2 and m=3, where m is the embedding dimension and d is the delay)
Fig. 2Recurrence Plots. The figure shows the recurrence plots of the HR time series for a patient.The parameters used for the recurrence plots were (d=2 and m=3, where m is the embedding dimension and d is the delay)
Fig. 3Cross Talk Event Event Plot. The figure shows the plot of HR and ICP time series, in a time window where a cross talk event is detected
Fig. 4HR graph with cross talk. The figure shows the HR horizontal visibility graph corresponding to the time window in which a cross talk is detected and shown in Fig. 3
Fig. 5ICP graph with cross talk. The figure shows the ICP horizontal visibility graph corresponding to the time window in which a cross talk is detected and shown in Fig. 3
Fig. 6Visualization of the multiplex visibility graph for the ICP and HR with a cross talk event: Multiplex Visibility graph of ICP and HR in the time window with a cross talk event detected (Mikko 2017)
Fig. 7ICP graph with no cross talk. The figure shows the ICP horizontal visibility graph corresponding to the time window in which no cross talks events are detected
Fig. 8HR graph with no cross talk. The figure shows the HR horizontal visibility graph corresponding to the time window in which no cross talks events are detected
Average value of the average edge overlat and mutual interaction for cross talks and non cross talks events windows
| Patient |
| MI CT |
| MI nonCT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.7535 | 0.5690 | 0.7513 | 0.4721 |
| 2 | 0.7334 | 0.4913 | 0.7306 | 0.4633 |
| 3 | 0.7444 | 0.5782 | 0.7388 | 0.4155 |
| 4 | 0.7424 | 0.6424 | 0.7298 | 0.5522 |
| 6 | 0.7505 | 0.5752 | 0.7544 | 0.6037 |
| 7 | 0.7715 | 0.4113 | 0.7630 | 0.2915 |
| 8 | 0.7431 | 0.5370 | 0.7277 | 0.5831 |
| 9 | 0.7382 | 0.6013 | 0.7552 | 0.6202 |
| 10 | 0.7301 | 0.5516 | 0.7399 | 0.4434 |
| 11 | 0.7473 | 0.5233 | 0.7633 | 0.3407 |
| 12 | 0.7346 | 0.6232 | 0.7243 | 0.5017 |
| 13 | 0.7635 | 0.4901 | 0.7622 | 0.3662 |
| 14 | 0.7420 | 0.6017 | 0.7540 | 0.6219 |
| 16 | 0.7611 | 0.5504 | 0.7495 | 0.6464 |
| 20 | 0.7260 | 0.5716 | 0.7321 | 0.5587 |
| 21 | 0.7283 | 0.4647 | 0.7272 | 0.4721 |
| 22 | 0.7191 | 0.5154 | 0.7545 | 0.5996 |
| 24 | 0.7520 | 0.6271 | 0.7654 | 0.4976 |
| 26 | 0.7565 | 0.4729 | 0.7306 | 0.4367 |
| 27 | 0.7818 | 0.7818 | 0.7764 | 0.3088 |
| Average values | 0.7460 | 0.5590 | 0.7465 | 0.4898 |
Each row is a patient. Every value presented is averaged over 10 cross talk windows. We discarded patient 5,15,18,19,23,25 who had less than 10 cross talks detected. CT and non CT stands for cross-talk or non cross-talk event