Key result
A recurrent neural network-based framework for automated P2/P1 ratio computation achieved an area under the curve of 0.90 for pulse classification and 97.3% accuracy for subpeak designation.
Why the study?
The P2/P1 ratio of cardiac-origin ICP pulses indicates cerebral compliance and reflects cerebrospinal system state, motivating an automated method to calculate it directly from raw signals.
Effect estimate: AUC 0.90; Accuracy 97.3%
A recurrent neural network-based framework can accurately classify pulses and designate subpeaks from raw intracranial pressure signals, offering a promising tool for bedside monitoring.
The intracranial pressure (ICP) signal, as monitored on patients in intensive care units, contains pulses of cardiac origin where P1 and P2 subpeaks can often be observed. When calculable, the ratio of their relative amplitudes is an indicator of the patient’s cerebral compliance. This characterization is particularly informative on the overall state of the cerebrospinal system. We developed a recurrent neural network-based framework for P2/P1 ratio computation that only takes a raw ICP signal as an input. Two tasks are performed, namely pulse classification and subpeak designation. Pulse classification was achieved with an area under the curve of 0.90 on a 4,344-pulse testing dataset, while the peak designation algorithm identified pulses with a P2/P1 ratio > 1 with a 97.3% accuracy. Although it still needs to be evaluated on a larger number of labeled recordings, our automated P2/P1 ratio calculation framework appears to be a promising tool for improving bedside monitoring devices.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Legé et al. (2023) studied Intracranial pressure monitoring in intensive care units. Recurrent neural network-based framework for P2/P1 ratio computation was evaluated on Pulse classification and subpeak designation (AUC 0.90; Accuracy 97.3%). A recurrent neural network-based framework for automated P2/P1 ratio computation achieved an area under the curve of 0.90 for pulse classification and 97.3% accuracy for subpeak designation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: