% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Amiri:916035,
author = {Amiri, Moshgan and Fisher, Patrick M and Raimondo, Federico
and Sidaros, Annette and Hribljan, Melita Cacic and Othman,
Marwan H and Zibrandtsen, Ivan and Albrechtsen, Simon S and
Bergdal, Ove and Hansen, Adam Espe and Hassager, Christian
and Højgaard, Joan Lilja S and Jakobsen, Elisabeth Waldemar
and Jensen, Helene Ravnholt and Møller, Jacob and
Nersesjan, Vardan and Nikolic, Miki and Olsen, Markus Harboe
and Sigurdsson, Sigurdur Thor and Sitt, Jacobo D and
Sølling, Christine and Welling, Karen Lise and Willumsen,
Lisette M and Hauerberg, John and Larsen, Vibeke Andrée and
Fabricius, Martin and Knudsen, Gitte Moos and Kjaergaard,
Jesper and Møller, Kirsten and Kondziella, Daniel},
title = {{M}ultimodal prediction of residual consciousness in the
intensive care unit: the {CONNECT}-{ME} study},
journal = {Brain},
volume = {146},
number = {1},
issn = {0006-8950},
address = {Oxford},
publisher = {Oxford Univ. Press},
reportid = {FZJ-2022-05881},
pages = {50-64},
year = {2023},
abstract = {Functional MRI (fMRI) and EEG may reveal residual
consciousness in patients with disorders of consciousness
(DoC), as reflected by a rapidly expanding literature on
chronic DoC. However, acute DoC is rarely investigated,
although identifying residual consciousness is key to
clinical decision-making in the intensive care unit (ICU).
Therefore, the objective of the prospective, observational,
tertiary centre cohort, diagnostic phase IIb study
‘Consciousness in neurocritical care cohort study using
EEG and fMRI’ (CONNECT-ME, NCT02644265) was to assess the
accuracy of fMRI and EEG to identify residual consciousness
in acute DoC in the ICU. Between April 2016 and November
2020, 87 acute DoC patients with traumatic or non-traumatic
brain injury were examined with repeated clinical
assessments, fMRI and EEG. Resting-state EEG and EEG with
external stimulations were evaluated by visual analysis,
spectral band analysis and a Support Vector Machine (SVM)
consciousness classifier. In addition, within- and
between-network resting-state connectivity for canonical
resting-state fMRI networks was assessed. Next, we used EEG
and fMRI data at study enrolment in two different
machine-learning algorithms (Random Forest and SVM with a
linear kernel) to distinguish patients in a minimally
conscious state or better (≥MCS) from those in coma or
unresponsive wakefulness state (≤UWS) at time of study
enrolment and at ICU discharge (or before death). Prediction
performances were assessed with area under the curve (AUC).
Of 87 DoC patients (mean age, 50.0 ± 18 years, $43\%$
female), 51 $(59\%)$ were ≤UWS and 36 $(41\%)$ were ≥
MCS at study enrolment. Thirty-one $(36\%)$ patients died in
the ICU, including 28 who had life-sustaining therapy
withdrawn. EEG and fMRI predicted consciousness levels at
study enrolment and ICU discharge, with maximum AUCs of 0.79
$(95\%$ CI 0.77–0.80) and 0.71 $(95\%$ CI 0.77–0.80),
respectively. Models based on combined EEG and fMRI features
predicted consciousness levels at study enrolment and ICU
discharge with maximum AUCs of 0.78 $(95\%$ CI 0.71–0.86)
and 0.83 $(95\%$ CI 0.75–0.89), respectively, with
improved positive predictive value and sensitivity. Overall,
both machine-learning algorithms (SVM and Random Forest)
performed equally well. In conclusion, we suggest that acute
DoC prediction models in the ICU be based on a combination
of fMRI and EEG features, regardless of the machine-learning
algorithm used.},
cin = {INM-7},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-7-20090406},
pnm = {5251 - Multilevel Brain Organization and Variability
(POF4-525)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5251},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {36097353},
UT = {WOS:000892013000001},
doi = {10.1093/brain/awac335},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/916035},
}