ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2023
A Deep Learning-Based Automated Framework for Subpeak Designation on Intracranial Pressure Signals.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring Cerebrospinal Compensatory Zones Using a Noninvasive Approach.Neurocritical care · 2025Observational
- Monro-Kellie 4.0: moving from intracranial pressure to intracranial dynamics.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Review
- A Comprehensive Perspective on Intracranial Pressure Monitoring and Individualized Management in Neurocritical Care: Results of a Survey with Global Experts.Neurocritical care · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The intracranial pressure (ICP) signal, as monitored on patients in intensive care units, contains pulses of cardiac origin, where P1 and P2 subpeaks can often be observed. When calculable, the ratio of their relative amplitudes is an indicator of the patient's cerebral compliance. This characterization is particularly informative for the overall state of the cerebrospinal system. The aim of this study is to develop and assess the performances of a deep learning-based pipeline for P2/P1 ratio computation that only takes a raw ICP signal as an input. The output P2/P1 ratio signal can be discontinuous since P1 and P2 subpeaks are not always visible. The proposed pipeline performs four tasks, namely (i) heartbeat-induced pulse detection, (ii) pulse selection, (iii) P1 and P2 designation, and (iv) signal smoothing and outlier removal. For tasks (i) and (ii), the performance of a recurrent neural network is compared to that of a convolutional neural network. The final algorithm is evaluated on a 4344-pulse testing dataset sampled from 10 patient recordings. Pulse selection is achieved with an area under the curve of 0.90, whereas the subpeak designation algorithm identifies pulses with a P2/P1 ratio > 1 with 97.3% accuracy. Although it still needs to be evaluated on a larger number of labeled recordings, our automated P2/P1 ratio calculation framework appears to be a promising tool that can be easily embedded into bedside monitoring devices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.