Observational studyCritical care (London, England)2026
EEG-based machine-learning prognostication in comatose patients with indeterminate outcome after cardiac arrest.
Observational study in Critical care (London, England), 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeurological prognostication after cardiac arrest remains challenging despite multimodal approaches recommended by the European Resuscitation Council and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ERC/ESICM). Prognostic certainty is achieved in only a subset of comatose patients, leaving a substantial proportion with an indeterminate prognosis. In this population, the incremental prognostic value of electroencephalography beyond established predictors remains insufficiently characterized.
methodsWe conducted a prospective 5-year (2021–2025) single-center observational study of adult comatose patients after cardiac arrest admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of the University Hospitals of Geneva. Patients presenting with fewer than two ERC/ESICM poor outcome factors were included. Continuous electroencephalogram (EEG) recordings obtained within 72 h after cardiac arrest were analyzed. Quantitative EEG features reflecting spectral power, functional connectivity, signal complexity, and background continuity were extracted and combined with automated estimates of rhythmic and periodic patterns derived from a previously validated neural network. These features were integrated into a random forest classifier to predict neurological outcome at 3–6 months, dichotomized as good (Cerebral Performance Category 1–2) or poor (3–5). Model performance was evaluated using repeated stratified cross-validation, and feature contributions were assessed using Shapley value analysis.
resultsOf a total of 313 patients, 77 met the inclusion criteria (mean age 61, 21 female), of whom 35 (45%) achieved a good neurological outcome. The model demonstrated good discriminative performance, with a mean Receiver Operating Characteristic – Area Under the Curve (ROC-AUC) of 0.80 and a Precision–Recall Area Under the Curve (PR-AUC of 0.83). Delta-band electroencephalography features accounted for most of the predictive contribution. Higher delta functional connectivity, higher delta relative power, and higher probability of periodic discharges were associated with poor outcome, whereas preserved relative alpha power and higher probability of rhythmic delta activity were associated with good outcome.
conclusionsIn comatose patients after cardiac arrest with ERC/ESICM guideline-defined indeterminate prognosis, an interpretable EEG-based prognostic model provides clinically relevant information. This approach may complement current multimodal prognostication strategies by refining early risk stratification in a population characterized by substantial prognostic uncertainty.
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.