Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31162190›Full record

ArticleCritical care medicine2019

Outcome Prediction in Postanoxic Coma With Deep Learning.

Marleen C Tjepkema-Cloostermans, Catarina da Silva Lourenço, Barry J Ruijter, Selma C Tromp, Gea Drost, Francois H M Kornips, Albertus Beishuizen, Frank H Bosch, Jeannette Hofmeijer, Michel J A M van Putten

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Multimodal Deep Learning for ARDS Detection.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Using artificial intelligence to optimize anti-seizure treatment and EEG-guided decisions in severe brain injury.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Marleen C Tjepkema-Cloostermans1Department of Clinical Neurophysiology and Neurology, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. 2Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. 3Biomedical Engineering, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal. 4Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands. 5Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 6Department of Neurology, VieCuri Medical Center, Venlo, The Netherlands. 7Intensive Care Center, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. 8Department of Intensive Care, Rijnstate hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands. 9Department of Neurology, Rijnstate hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Catarina da Silva LourençoDepartment of Clinical Neurophysiology, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Barry J RuijterDepartment of Clinical Neurophysiology, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Selma C TrompDepartment of Clinical Neurophysiology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
Gea DrostDepartment of Neurology and Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Francois H M KornipsDepartment of Neurology, VieCuri Medical Center, Venlo, The Netherlands.
Albertus BeishuizenIntensive Care Center, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Frank H BoschDepartment of Intensive Care, Rijnstate hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Jeannette HofmeijerDepartment of Clinical Neurophysiology, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Michel J A M van PuttenDepartment of Clinical Neurophysiology and Neurology, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
University of Twente · NLMedisch Spectrum Twente · NLRijnstate Hospital · NLSt. Antonius Ziekenhuis · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NLVieCuri Medisch Centrum · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesVisual assessment of the electroencephalogram by experienced clinical neurophysiologists allows reliable outcome prediction of approximately half of all comatose patients after cardiac arrest. Deep neural networks hold promise to achieve similar or even better performance, being more objective and consistent.

designProspective cohort study.

settingMedical ICU of five teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. PATIENTS: Eight-hundred ninety-five consecutive comatose patients after cardiac arrest.

interventionsNone. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsContinuous electroencephalogram was recorded during the first 3 days after cardiac arrest. Functional outcome at 6 months was classified as good (Cerebral Performance Category 1-2) or poor (Cerebral Performance Category 3-5). We trained a convolutional neural network, with a VGG architecture (introduced by the Oxford Visual Geometry Group), to predict neurologic outcome at 12 and 24 hours after cardiac arrest using electroencephalogram epochs and outcome labels as inputs. Output of the network was the probability of good outcome. Data from two hospitals were used for training and internal validation (n = 661). Eighty percent of these data was used for training and cross-validation, the remaining 20% for independent internal validation. Data from the other three hospitals were used for external validation (n = 234). Prediction of poor outcome was most accurate at 12 hours, with a sensitivity in the external validation set of 58% (95% CI, 51-65%) at false positive rate of 0% (CI, 0-7%). Good outcome could be predicted at 12 hours with a sensitivity of 48% (CI, 45-51%) at a false positive rate of 5% (CI, 0-15%) in the external validation set.

conclusionsDeep learning of electroencephalogram signals outperforms any previously reported outcome predictor of coma after cardiac arrest, including visual electroencephalogram assessment by trained electroencephalogram experts. Our approach offers the potential for objective and real time, bedside insight in the neurologic prognosis of comatose patients after cardiac arrest.

Indexed as

Deep LearningElectroencephalographyAgedComaFemaleHeart ArrestHumansHypoxia, BrainMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID31162190
OpenAlexW2948398841

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.