Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41837250›Full record

ArticleEpilepsy currents2026

Automating Critical Care EEG: Enhancing Accuracy, Efficiency, and Patient Outcomes in Critical Care.

Clio Rubinos, Edilberto Amorim, Erafat Rehim, Andres Rodriguez-Ruiz, Sahar F Zafar, Zubeda B Sheikh, Maria Jose Bruzzone

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epilepsy currents, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Clio RubinosDepartment of Neurology, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1680-2302
Edilberto AmorimDepartment of Neurology, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Erafat RehimDepartment of Neurology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Andres Rodriguez-RuizDepartment of Neurology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Sahar F ZafarDepartment of Neurology, Mass General Brigham Inc, Boston, MA, USA.
Zubeda B SheikhDepartment of Neurology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond VA, USA.
Maria Jose BruzzoneDepartment of Neurology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fl, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rapid expansion of continuous EEG (cEEG) monitoring in critically ill patients has created a growing gap between data acquisition and the clinical capacity to interpret these data in a timely manner. This mismatch has emerged alongside major advances in EEG automation, which promise to support more efficient and clinically integrated interpretation. At the same time, evidence guiding the optimal, safe, and ethically responsible use of these tools remains limited. In this review, we trace the historical development of EEG analysis methods from early automation to contemporary AI-based approaches and examine their application in neurocritical care. We discuss the potential benefits and limitations of quantitative EEG and AI for EEG processing, as well as the role of AI in supporting clinical decision-making in these populations when integrated with electronic medical record systems. By focusing on practical implementation and real-world constraints, we aim to show how automated and AI-assisted tools can augment, rather than replace, clinical expertise and help improve the timeliness and quality of patient-centered care.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceautomated EEG interpretationmachine learningquantitative EEGseizure detection algorithms

Identifiers

PMID41837250
PMCPMC12987747

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.