Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37972682›Full record

SynthesisResuscitation2024

Electroencephalogram-based machine learning models to predict neurologic outcome after cardiac arrest: A systematic review.

Chao-Chen Chen, Shavonne L Massey, Matthew P Kirschen, Ian Yuan, Asif Padiyath, Allan F Simpao, Fuchiang Rich Tsui

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Resuscitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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
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

7 authors.

Chao-Chen ChenTsui Laboratory, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 734 Schuylkill Ave, Philadelphia, PA 19146, United States; Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, 240 Skirkanich Hall, 210 S 33rd St, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States.
Shavonne L MasseyDepartment of Neurology and Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 3401 Civic Center Blvd, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States; Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Civic Center Blvd, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States.
Matthew P KirschenDepartment of Neurology and Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 3401 Civic Center Blvd, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States; Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 3401 Civic Center Blvd, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States; Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Civic Center Blvd, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States.
Ian YuanDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 3401 Civic Center Blvd, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States; Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Civic Center Blvd, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States.
Asif PadiyathDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 3401 Civic Center Blvd, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States; Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Civic Center Blvd, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States.
Allan F SimpaoDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 3401 Civic Center Blvd, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States; Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Civic Center Blvd, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States.
Fuchiang Rich TsuiTsui Laboratory, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 734 Schuylkill Ave, Philadelphia, PA 19146, United States; Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 3401 Civic Center Blvd, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States; Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, 423 Guardian Dr, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States; Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Civic Center Blvd, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States. Electronic address: tsuif@chop.edu.

Funding

Cerebral autoregulation and MRI measures of brain injury after pediatric-post cardiac arrestK23NS116120 · NINDS · CHILDREN'S HOSP OF PHILADELPHIA · PI KIRSCHEN, MATTHEW P · 2021 to 2025
$966k
NINDS NIH HHS K23 NS116120
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aim of the reviewThe primary aim of this systematic review was to investigate the most common electroencephalogram (EEG)-based machine learning (ML) model with the highest Area Under Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC) in two ML categories, conventional ML and Deep Neural Network (DNN), to predict the neurologic outcomes after cardiac arrest; the secondary aim was to investigate common EEG features applied to ML models.

methodsSystematic search of medical literature from PubMed and engineering literature from Compendex up to June 2, 2023. One reviewer screened studies that used EEG-based ML models to predict the neurologic outcomes after cardiac arrest. Four reviewers validated that the studies met selection criteria. Nine variables were manually extracted. The top-five common EEG features were calculated. We evaluated each study's risk of bias using the Quality in Prognosis Studies guideline.

resultsOut of 351 identified studies, 17 studies met the inclusion criteria. Random Forest (RF) (n = 7) was the most common ML model in the conventional ML category (n = 11), followed by Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) (n = 4) in the DNN category (n = 6). The AUCs for RF ranged between 0.8 and 0.97, while CNN had AUCs between 0.7 and 0.92. The top-three commonly used EEG features were band power (n = 12), Shannon's Entropy (n = 11), burst-suppression ratio (n = 9).

conclusionsRF and CNN were the two most common ML models with the highest AUCs for predicting the neurologic outcomes after cardiac arrest. Using a multimodal model that combines EEG features and electronic health record data may further improve prognostic performance.

Indexed as

Heart ArrestElectroencephalographyHumansMachine LearningPrognosisROC CurveDeep LearningElectroencephalographyHeart ArrestMachine LearningPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID37972682
PMCPMC11023717

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.