Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36009445›Full record

ArticleBiomedicines2022

Accuracy of EEG Biomarkers in the Detection of Clinical Outcome in Disorders of Consciousness after Severe Acquired Brain Injury: Preliminary Results of a Pilot Study Using a Machine Learning Approach.

Francesco Di Gregorio, Fabio La Porta, Valeria Petrone, Simone Battaglia, Silvia Orlandi, Giuseppe Ippolito, Vincenzo Romei, Roberto Piperno, Giada Lullini

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomedicines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
12.6field-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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 84 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. AI and Neurology.Neurological research and practice · 2025
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Francesco Di GregorioUO Medicina Riabilitativa e Neuroriabilitazione, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale, 40133 Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3587-3149
Fabio La PortaIRCCS Istituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna.
Valeria PetroneIRCCS Istituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna.
Simone BattagliaCentro Studi e Ricerche in Neuroscienze Cognitive, Dipartimento di Psicologia, Alma Mater Studiorum-Università di Bologna, Campus di Cesena, 47521 Cesena, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4133-654X
Silvia OrlandiDepartment of Electrical, Electronic and Information Engineering "Guglielmo Marconi", University of Bologna, Viale Risorgimento, 2, 40136 Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2733-8450
Giuseppe IppolitoCentro Studi e Ricerche in Neuroscienze Cognitive, Dipartimento di Psicologia, Alma Mater Studiorum-Università di Bologna, Campus di Cesena, 47521 Cesena, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8902-5017
Vincenzo RomeiCentro Studi e Ricerche in Neuroscienze Cognitive, Dipartimento di Psicologia, Alma Mater Studiorum-Università di Bologna, Campus di Cesena, 47521 Cesena, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1214-2316
Roberto PipernoIRCCS Istituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna.
Giada LulliniIRCCS Istituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna.
Istituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna · ITUniversity of Bologna · ITMarconi University · ITUniversity of Turin · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate outcome detection in neuro-rehabilitative settings is crucial for appropriate long-term rehabilitative decisions in patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC). EEG measures derived from high-density EEG can provide helpful information regarding diagnosis and recovery in DoC patients. However, the accuracy rate of EEG biomarkers to predict the clinical outcome in DoC patients is largely unknown. This study investigated the accuracy of psychophysiological biomarkers based on clinical EEG in predicting clinical outcomes in DoC patients. To this aim, we extracted a set of EEG biomarkers in 33 DoC patients with traumatic and nontraumatic etiologies and estimated their accuracy to discriminate patients' etiologies and predict clinical outcomes 6 months after the injury. Machine learning reached an accuracy of 83.3% (sensitivity = 92.3%, specificity = 60%) with EEG-based functional connectivity predicting clinical outcome in nontraumatic patients. Furthermore, the combination of functional connectivity and dominant frequency in EEG activity best predicted clinical outcomes in traumatic patients with an accuracy of 80% (sensitivity = 85.7%, specificity = 71.4%). These results highlight the importance of functional connectivity in predicting recovery in DoC patients. Moreover, this study shows the high translational value of EEG biomarkers both in terms of feasibility and accuracy for the assessment of DoC.

Indexed as

acquired brain damagebrain functional impairmentbrain plasticity and connectivitydisorders of consciousnesselectroencephalographylinear discriminant analysesneurocognitive disorderspost-anoxic comasevere acquired brain injurytraumatic brain injury

Identifiers

PMID36009445
PMCPMC9405912
OpenAlexW4290466964

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.