1. Quantitative analysis of EEG reactivity for neurological prognostication after cardiac arrest
- Author
-
S. Delgado Olabarriaga, Janneke Horn, Lucas A. Ramos, Henk A. Marquering, A.F. van Rootselaar, Marjolein M. Admiraal, Intensive Care Medicine, Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Adult Psychiatry, ACS - Atherosclerosis & ischemic syndromes, APH - Methodology, ANS - Brain Imaging, ANS - Cellular & Molecular Mechanisms, ANS - Compulsivity, Impulsivity & Attention, ANS - Neurovascular Disorders, AMS - Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Epidemiology and Data Science, Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, ANS - Neuroinfection & -inflammation, Neurology, and ANS - Neurodegeneration
- Subjects
Male ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Models, Neurological ,Prognostication ,Electroencephalography ,Physiology (medical) ,Internal medicine ,Machine learning ,False positive paradox ,Humans ,Medicine ,Aged ,Brain Diseases ,EEG reactivity ,medicine.diagnostic_test ,business.industry ,Background data ,Middle Aged ,Cardiac arrest ,Predictive modeling ,Sensory Systems ,Heart Arrest ,Neurology ,Cardiology ,Female ,Neurology (clinical) ,business ,Quantitative analysis (chemistry) - Abstract
Objective To test whether 1) quantitative analysis of EEG reactivity (EEG-R) using machine learning (ML) is superior to visual analysis, and 2) combining quantitative analyses of EEG-R and EEG background pattern increases prognostic value for prediction of poor outcome after cardiac arrest (CA). Methods Several types of ML models were trained with twelve quantitative features derived from EEG-R and EEG background data of 134 adult CA patients. Poor outcome was a Cerebral Performance Category score of 3–5 within 6 months. Results The Random Forest (RF) trained on EEG-R showed the highest AUC of 83% (95-CI 80–86) of tested ML classifiers, predicting poor outcome with 46% sensitivity (95%-CI 40–51) and 89% specificity (95%-CI 86–92). Visual analysis of EEG-R had 80% sensitivity and 65% specificity. The RF was also the best classifier for EEG background (AUC 85%, 95%-CI 83–88) at 24 h after CA, with 62% sensitivity (95%-CI 57–67) and 84% specificity (95%-CI 79–88). Combining EEG-R and EEG background RF classifiers reduced the number of false positives. Conclusions Quantitative EEG-R using ML predicts poor outcome with higher specificity, but lower sensitivity compared to visual analysis of EEG-R, and is of some additional value to ML on EEG background data. Significance Quantitative EEG-R using ML is a promising alternative to visual analysis and of some added value to ML on EEG background data.
- Published
- 2021