ArticleBiomedical engineering online2024
Peak detection in intracranial pressure signal waveforms: a comparative study.
Article in Biomedical engineering online, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Waveform-Derived Metrics of Intracranial Compliance: Validation and Pulsatile Dynamics.Neurocritical care · 2026Article
- Invasive and Noninvasive Intracranial Pressure Pulse Waveform in Neurocritical Care Patients with Different Cranium Integrity.Neurocritical care · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe monitoring and analysis of quasi-periodic biological signals such as electrocardiography (ECG), intracranial pressure (ICP), and cerebral blood flow velocity (CBFV) waveforms plays an important role in the early detection of adverse patient events and contributes to improved care management in the intensive care unit (ICU). This work quantitatively evaluates existing computational frameworks for automatically extracting peaks within ICP waveforms.
methodsPeak detection techniques based on state-of-the-art machine learning models were evaluated in terms of robustness to varying noise levels. The evaluation was performed on a dataset of ICP signals assembled from 700 h of monitoring from 64 neurosurgical patients. The groundtruth of the peak locations was established manually on a subset of 13, 611 pulses. Additional evaluation was performed using a simulated dataset of ICP with controlled temporal dynamics and noise.
resultsThe quantitative analysis of peak detection algorithms applied to individual waveforms indicates that most techniques provide acceptable accuracy with a mean absolute error (MAE)
conclusionWhile machine learning-based peak detection methods require manually labeled data for training, these models outperform conventional signal processing ones based on handcrafted rules and should be considered for peak detection in modern frameworks. In particular, peak tracking methods that incorporate temporal information between successive periods of the signals have demonstrated in our experiments to provide more robustness to noise and temporary artifacts that commonly arise as part of the monitoring setup in the clinical setting.
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.