Edilberto Amorim1, Michelle van der Stoel2, Sunil B Nagaraj3, Mohammad M Ghassemi4, Jin Jing5, Una-May O'Reilly6, Benjamin M Scirica7, Jong Woo Lee8, Sydney S Cash5, M Brandon Westover5. 1. Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA. Electronic address: edilbertoamorim@gmail.com. 2. University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands. 3. University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands. 4. Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA. 5. Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 6. Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA. 7. Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 8. Department of Neurology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Electroencephalogram (EEG) reactivity is a robust predictor of neurological recovery after cardiac arrest, however interrater-agreement among electroencephalographers is limited. We sought to evaluate the performance of machine learning methods using EEG reactivity data to predict good long-term outcomes in hypoxic-ischemic brain injury. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed clinical and EEG data of comatose cardiac arrest subjects. Electroencephalogram reactivity was tested within 72 h from cardiac arrest using sound and pain stimuli. A Quantitative EEG (QEEG) reactivity method evaluated changes in QEEG features (EEG spectra, entropy, and frequency features) during the 10 s before and after each stimulation. Good outcome was defined as Cerebral Performance Category of 1-2 at six months. Performance of a random forest classifier was compared against a penalized general linear model (GLM) and expert electroencephalographer review. RESULTS: Fifty subjects were included and sixteen (32%) had good outcome. Both QEEG reactivity methods had comparable performance to expert EEG reactivity assessment for good outcome prediction (mean AUC 0.8 for random forest vs. 0.69 for GLM vs. 0.69 for expert review, respectively; p non-significant). CONCLUSIONS: Machine-learning models utilizing quantitative EEG reactivity data can predict long-term outcome after cardiac arrest. SIGNIFICANCE: A quantitative approach to EEG reactivity assessment may support prognostication in cardiac arrest.
OBJECTIVE: Electroencephalogram (EEG) reactivity is a robust predictor of neurological recovery after cardiac arrest, however interrater-agreement among electroencephalographers is limited. We sought to evaluate the performance of machine learning methods using EEG reactivity data to predict good long-term outcomes in hypoxic-ischemic brain injury. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed clinical and EEG data of comatose cardiac arrest subjects. Electroencephalogram reactivity was tested within 72 h from cardiac arrest using sound and pain stimuli. A Quantitative EEG (QEEG) reactivity method evaluated changes in QEEG features (EEG spectra, entropy, and frequency features) during the 10 s before and after each stimulation. Good outcome was defined as Cerebral Performance Category of 1-2 at six months. Performance of a random forest classifier was compared against a penalized general linear model (GLM) and expert electroencephalographer review. RESULTS: Fifty subjects were included and sixteen (32%) had good outcome. Both QEEG reactivity methods had comparable performance to expert EEG reactivity assessment for good outcome prediction (mean AUC 0.8 for random forest vs. 0.69 for GLM vs. 0.69 for expert review, respectively; p non-significant). CONCLUSIONS: Machine-learning models utilizing quantitative EEG reactivity data can predict long-term outcome after cardiac arrest. SIGNIFICANCE: A quantitative approach to EEG reactivity assessment may support prognostication in cardiac arrest.
Authors: Niklas Nielsen; Jørn Wetterslev; Tobias Cronberg; David Erlinge; Yvan Gasche; Christian Hassager; Janneke Horn; Jan Hovdenes; Jesper Kjaergaard; Michael Kuiper; Tommaso Pellis; Pascal Stammet; Michael Wanscher; Matt P Wise; Anders Åneman; Nawaf Al-Subaie; Søren Boesgaard; John Bro-Jeppesen; Iole Brunetti; Jan Frederik Bugge; Christopher D Hingston; Nicole P Juffermans; Matty Koopmans; Lars Køber; Jørund Langørgen; Gisela Lilja; Jacob Eifer Møller; Malin Rundgren; Christian Rylander; Ondrej Smid; Christophe Werer; Per Winkel; Hans Friberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-11-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: L J Hirsch; S M LaRoche; N Gaspard; E Gerard; A Svoronos; S T Herman; R Mani; H Arif; N Jette; Y Minazad; J F Kerrigan; P Vespa; S Hantus; J Claassen; G B Young; E So; P W Kaplan; M R Nuwer; N B Fountain; F W Drislane Journal: J Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 2.177
Authors: Sarah M Perman; James N Kirkpatrick; Angelique M Reitsma; David F Gaieski; Bonnie Lau; Thomas M Smith; Marion Leary; Barry D Fuchs; Joshua M Levine; Benjamin S Abella; Lance B Becker; Raina M Merchant Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Joseph T Giacino; S Ashwal; N Childs; R Cranford; B Jennett; D I Katz; J P Kelly; J H Rosenberg; J Whyte; R D Zafonte; N D Zasler Journal: Neurology Date: 2002-02-12 Impact factor: 9.910
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: Alexis N Simpkins; Katharina M Busl; Edilberto Amorim; Carolina Barnett-Tapia; Mackenzie C Cervenka; Monica B Dhakar; Mark R Etherton; Celia Fung; Robert Griggs; Robert G Holloway; Adam G Kelly; Imad R Khan; Karlo J Lizarraga; Hannah G Madagan; Chidinma L Onweni; Humberto Mestre; Alejandro A Rabinstein; Clio Rubinos; Dawling A Dionisio-Santos; Teddy S Youn; Lisa H Merck; Carolina B Maciel Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2020-09-21 Impact factor: 3.210