EEG Reactivity Evaluation Practices for Adult and Pediatric Hypoxic-Ischemic Coma Prognostication in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the variability in EEG reactivity evaluation practices during cardiac arrest prognostication. METHODS: A survey of institutional representatives from North American academic hospitals participating in the Critical Care EEG Monitoring Research Consortium was conducted to assess practice patterns involving EEG reactivity evaluation. This 10-question multiple-choice survey evaluated metrics related to technical, interpretation, personnel, and procedural aspects of bedside EEG reactivity testing and interpretation specific to cardiac arrest prognostication. One response per hospital was obtained. RESULTS: Responses were received from 25 hospitals, including 7 pediatric hospitals. A standardized EEG reactivity protocol was available in 44% of centers. Sixty percent of respondents believed that reactivity interpretation was subjective. Reactivity bedside testing always (100%) started during hypothermia and was performed daily during monitoring in the majority (71%) of hospitals. Stimulation was performed primarily by neurodiagnostic technologists (76%). The mean number of activation procedures modalities tested was 4.5 (SD 2.1). The most commonly used activation procedures were auditory (83.3%), nail bed pressure (63%), and light tactile stimuli (63%). Changes in EEG amplitude alone were not considered consistent with EEG reactivity in 21% of centers. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variability in EEG reactivity evaluation practices during cardiac arrest prognostication among North American academic hospitals. Efforts are needed to standardize protocols and nomenclature according with national guidelines and promote best practices in EEG reactivity evaluation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".