MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412166633 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2025.10251

P.091 Parameterized short-segment EEG improves neurological recovery prediction in patients with severe brain injury

2025· article· en· W4412166633 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tengfei Zhang, Kira Dolhan, Christian Maschke, MeiLan K. Han, Raphaël A. Lavoie, Stefanie Blain‐Moraes

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParameterized complexityElectroencephalographyTraumatic brain injuryMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationNeuroscienceComputer sciencePsychologyAlgorithmPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Predicting neurological recovery in patients with severe brain injury remains challenging. Continuous EEG monitoring can detect malignant patterns but is resource-intensive, and its role in long-term functional outcome prediction is unclear. This study evaluates the utility of parameterized short-segment EEG, acquired via EEG cap, in predicting neurological recovery. Methods: We analyzed short-segment high-density EEGs from 42 patients in the NET-ICU cohort with acute neurological injury. EEGs were pre-processed into standard clinical formats and parameterized using five visual EEG features associated with outcome prediction. Random Forest Classifier (RFC) models were trained and cross-validated to predict recovery of responsiveness (following 1-2 step commands during or after ICU admission) using: EEG features alone; clinician prediction combined with EEG features. Results: EEG-based prediction outperformed clinician bedside assessment (AUC ROC: 0.80 vs. 0.67) under the RFC model. Combining clinician Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended (GOSE) scores with EEG features improved overall predictive performance (AUC ROC: 0.91). Conclusions: Standardized EEG features obtained using EEG caps can improve the accuracy of neurological recovery predictions in patients with acute severe brain injury. This suggests that automated extraction of background brain signals has the potential to provide clinically meaningful prognostic information in critical care settings, enhancing accessibility and resource efficiency.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques→Same topicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces→French-language works237,207→