» Articles » PMID: 35233717

Outcome Prediction of Postanoxic Coma: A Comparison of Automated Electroencephalography Analysis Methods

Abstract

Background: To compare three computer-assisted quantitative electroencephalography (EEG) prediction models for the outcome prediction of comatose patients after cardiac arrest regarding predictive performance and robustness to artifacts.

Methods: A total of 871 continuous EEGs recorded up to 3 days after cardiac arrest in intensive care units of five teaching hospitals in the Netherlands were retrospectively analyzed. Outcome at 6 months was dichotomized as "good" (Cerebral Performance Category 1-2) or "poor" (Cerebral Performance Category 3-5). Three prediction models were implemented: a logistic regression model using two quantitative features, a random forest model with nine features, and a deep learning model based on a convolutional neural network. Data from two centers were used for training and fivefold cross-validation (n = 663), and data from three other centers were used for external validation (n = 208). Model output was the probability of good outcome. Predictive performances were evaluated by using receiver operating characteristic analysis and the calculation of predictive values. Robustness to artifacts was evaluated by using an artifact rejection algorithm, manually added noise, and randomly flattened channels in the EEG.

Results: The deep learning network showed the best overall predictive performance. On the external test set, poor outcome could be predicted by the deep learning network at 24 h with a sensitivity of 54% (95% confidence interval [CI] 44-64%) at a false positive rate (FPR) of 0% (95% CI 0-2%), significantly higher than the logistic regression (sensitivity 33%, FPR 0%) and random forest models (sensitivity 13%, FPR, 0%) (p < 0.05). Good outcome at 12 h could be predicted by the deep learning network with a sensitivity of 78% (95% CI 52-100%) at a FPR of 12% (95% CI 0-24%) and by the logistic regression model with a sensitivity of 83% (95% CI 83-83%) at a FPR of 3% (95% CI 3-3%), both significantly higher than the random forest model (sensitivity 1%, FPR 0%) (p < 0.05). The results of the deep learning network were the least affected by the presence of artifacts, added white noise, and flat EEG channels.

Conclusions: A deep learning model outperformed logistic regression and random forest models for reliable, robust, EEG-based outcome prediction of comatose patients after cardiac arrest.

Citing Articles

Using artificial intelligence to optimize anti-seizure treatment and EEG-guided decisions in severe brain injury.

Akras Z, Jing J, Westover M, Zafar S Neurotherapeutics. 2025; 22(1):e00524.

PMID: 39855915 PMC: 11840355. DOI: 10.1016/j.neurot.2025.e00524.


Application of multi-feature-based machine learning models to predict neurological outcomes of cardiac arrest.

Ni P, Zhang S, Hu W, Diao M Resusc Plus. 2024; 20:100829.

PMID: 39639943 PMC: 11617783. DOI: 10.1016/j.resplu.2024.100829.


Electroencephalogram-based machine learning models to predict neurologic outcome after cardiac arrest: A systematic review.

Chen C, Massey S, Kirschen M, Yuan I, Padiyath A, Simpao A Resuscitation. 2023; 194:110049.

PMID: 37972682 PMC: 11023717. DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2023.110049.


Deep learning for EEG-based prognostication after cardiac arrest: from current research to future clinical applications.

Zubler F, Tzovara A Front Neurol. 2023; 14:1183810.

PMID: 37560450 PMC: 10408678. DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2023.1183810.


AI and machine learning in resuscitation: Ongoing research, new concepts, and key challenges.

Okada Y, Mertens M, Liu N, Lam S, Ong M Resusc Plus. 2023; 15:100435.

PMID: 37547540 PMC: 10400904. DOI: 10.1016/j.resplu.2023.100435.

References
1.
LeCun Y, Bengio Y, Hinton G . Deep learning. Nature. 2015; 521(7553):436-44. DOI: 10.1038/nature14539. View

2.
Ruijter B, van Putten M, van den Bergh W, Tromp S, Hofmeijer J . Propofol does not affect the reliability of early EEG for outcome prediction of comatose patients after cardiac arrest. Clin Neurophysiol. 2019; 130(8):1263-1270. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2019.04.707. View

3.
Amorim E, Rittenberger J, Zheng J, Westover M, Baldwin M, Callaway C . Continuous EEG monitoring enhances multimodal outcome prediction in hypoxic-ischemic brain injury. Resuscitation. 2016; 109():121-126. PMC: 5124407. DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2016.08.012. View

4.
Dankiewicz J, Cronberg T, Lilja G, Jakobsen J, Levin H, Ullen S . Hypothermia versus Normothermia after Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest. N Engl J Med. 2021; 384(24):2283-2294. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2100591. View

5.
Zandbergen E, de Haan R, Stoutenbeek C, Koelman J, Hijdra A . Systematic review of early prediction of poor outcome in anoxic-ischaemic coma. Lancet. 1998; 352(9143):1808-12. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)04076-8. View