ArticleAMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science2024
Detecting Cerebral Ischemia From Electroencephalography During Carotid Endarterectomy Using Machine Learning.
Article in AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Monitoring cerebral neuronal activity via electroencephalography (EEG) during surgery can detect ischemia, a precursor to stroke. However, current neurophysiologist-based monitoring is prone to error. In this study, we evaluated machine learning (ML) for efficient and accurate ischemia detection. We trained supervised ML models on a dataset of 802 patients with intraoperative ischemia labels and evaluated them on an independent validation dataset of 30 patients with refined labels from five neurophysiologists. Our results show moderate-to-substantial agreement between neurophysiologists, with Cohen's kappa values between 0.59 and 0.74. Neurophysiologist performance ranged from 58-93% for sensitivity and 83-96% for specificity, while ML models demonstrated comparable ranges of 63-89% and 85-96%. Random Forest (RF), LightGBM (LGBM), and XGBoost RF achieved area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) values of 0.92-0.93 and area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC) values of 0.79-0.83. ML has the potential to improve intraoperative monitoring, enhancing patient safety and reducing costs.
Identifiers
38827046PMC11141851What 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.