Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40018289›Full record

ArticleBJA open2024

Deep learning models using intracranial and scalp EEG for predicting sedation level during emergence from anaesthesia.

Lichy Han, David A Purger, Sarah L Eagleman, Casey H Halpern, Vivek Buch, Samantha M Gaston, Babak Razavi, Kimford Meador, David R Drover

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJA open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07396727 (Health Professionals' Perceptions of the Subconscious Effects of Intraoperative Conversations in Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT07396727 completednot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Health Professionals' Perceptions of the Subconscious Effects of Intraoperative Conversations in Patients: A Questionnaire-Based Study

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorBaşakşehir Çam & Sakura City HospitalRan2026 to 2026Enrolled251ConditionsIntraoperative Awareness, Anesthesia, General, ConsciousnessArmsQuestionnaire / Survey
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Lichy HanDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
David A PurgerDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Sarah L EaglemanDepartment of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Casey H HalpernDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Vivek BuchDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Samantha M GastonDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Babak RazaviDepartment of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Kimford MeadorDepartment of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
David R DroverDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.

Funding

Intracranial cortical network connectivity underlying complexity changes during anesthetic emergenceK99GM140215 · NIGMS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI EAGLEMAN, SARAH · 2020 to 2021
$102k
NIGMS NIH HHS K99 GM140215
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Maintaining an appropriate depth of anaesthesia is important for avoiding adverse effects from undermedication or overmedication during surgery. Electroencephalography (EEG) has become increasingly used to achieve this balance. Investigating the predictive power of intracranial EEG (iEEG) and scalp EEG for different levels of sedation could increase the utility of EEG monitoring. Methods: Simultaneous iEEG, scalp EEG, and Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) scores were recorded during emergence from anaesthesia in seven patients undergoing placement of intracranial electrodes for medically refractory epilepsy. A deep learning model was constructed to predict an OAA/S score of 0-2 Results: Combining scalp EEG and iEEG yielded significantly better prediction (AUC=0.795, Conclusions: The combination of iEEG and scalp EEG better predicted sedation level than either modality alone. The scalp EEG only model achieved a similar AUC to the combined model and maintained its performance in additional patients, suggesting that scalp EEG models are likely sufficient for real-time monitoring. Deep learning approaches using multiple leads to capture a wider area of brain activity may help augment existing EEG monitors for prediction of sedation.

Indexed as

deep learningdepth of sedationelectroencephalographyintracranial electroencephalographyprediction modelling

Identifiers

PMID40018289
PMCPMC11867133

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.