ArticleNeurocritical care2026
Machine Learning Using Electroencephalography Predicts Acute Cerebral Injury in the Pediatric ICU.
Article in Neurocritical care, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThe objective of this study was to apply and compare machine learning techniques using clinical and electroencephalography (EEG) background features to predict acute cerebral injury in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU).
methodsThis was a prospective study of patients admitted to the PICU from July 2021 to January 2023. We excluded patients with preexisting cerebral injury and known epilepsy. Clinical variables collected included demographics, reason for admission, electroencephalography (EEG) features, and neuroimaging findings. Machine learning techniques to predict cerebral injury included K-nearest neighbor, logistic regression (LR), support vector machines (SVM), random forest, gradient boosting, and Adaboost classifiers. For SVM, we used the linear and radial basis function kernels (RBF). We designed a binary classification for predicting acute brain injury (class 1) versus no brain injury (class 2) and a multiclass classification to better identify details of the brain injury: no injury (class 1), unilateral injury (class 2), and bilateral injury (class 3). The performance was evaluated in terms of precision, recall, and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve.
resultsOf 201 patients, 42% were female, and the median age was 3.5 years (IQR 1-11.6 years). The most common EEG background was slow/disorganized (73%). In total, 24% of patients had epileptiform discharges and 13% of patients had electrographic seizures. Acute cerebral injury was detected in 51%. For the binary classification to detect the presence or absence of acute cerebral injury, SVM with RBF was most accurate with AUROC of 0.95% and test accuracy of 0.90% for predicting cerebral injury. For the multiclass classification to detect unilateral versus bilateral cerebral injury, LR had the highest test accuracy with 0.77%. DISCUSSION: Machine learning can be employed using clinical and EEG features to accurately predict acute cerebral injury in critically ill children.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42768269What 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.