EEG-Based Neurological Outcome Prediction after Cardiac Arrest with an LSTM RNN

Can We Predict Life after the Heart Stops Beating?

Master Thesis (2021)
Author(s)

L.M. van Poppel (TU Delft - Mechanical Engineering)

Contributor(s)

Alfred Schouten – Mentor (TU Delft - Biomechatronics & Human-Machine Control)

Wouter Potters – Mentor

Faculty
Mechanical Engineering
Copyright
© 2021 L.M. van Poppel
More Info
expand_more
Publication Year
2021
Language
English
Copyright
© 2021 L.M. van Poppel
Graduation Date
06-01-2021
Awarding Institution
Delft University of Technology
Faculty
Mechanical Engineering
Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Abstract

Objective: Prediction of comatose patients’ neu-rological outcome after cardiac arrest (CA) is essentialto prevent unnecessary continuation of treatment (withexpensive and scarce resources) and prevent emotionalburdens on families. Electroencephalography (EEG) canaid the prediction of outcome after CA. Visual EEGanalysis is subjective, time-consuming, and might missimportant information. Existing EEG-based machinelearning models are more reliable but lack interpretationof temporal characteristics of EEG. Long-short-term-memory networks (LSTMs) do take advantage of suchtemporal characteristics. Therefore, I hypothesized thatan LSTM would outperform time-insensitive models.Methods: Patients’ neurological outcome at six monthsafter CA was classified as good (no/mild neurologicaldamage) or poor (severe neurological damage/vegetativestate/death). Twelve quantitative EEG features wereextracted from five-minute EEG epochs recorded 12(n=78) or 24 (n=176) hours after CA. A time-insensitivebaseline logistic regression model (LR) and an LSTMwere developed and trained. The performance was eval-uated using the area under the receiver operator curve(AUC) and the sensitivity at 100% specificity (SeSp100)for poor outcome prediction. The LSTM was comparedto the current LR and previously published models.Results and conclusion: The LSTM predicted pooroutcome with AUC=0.90 and SeSp100=0.66, meaningit did not significantly improve performance over LR(AUC=0.89, SeSp100=0.67). However, the LSTM andLR outperformed almost all previously reported mod-els, likely due to the features’ high prognostic power.The SeSp100 was even higher for the LSTM (0.79) andLR (0.78) when using only epochs at 12 hours after CA,suggesting that earlier EEG might further improve prog-nostication.

Files

License info not available