↓ Skip to main content

Defining abnormal slow EEG activity in acute ischaemic stroke: Delta/alpha ratio as an optimal QEEG index

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Neurophysiology, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
146 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
207 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Defining abnormal slow EEG activity in acute ischaemic stroke: Delta/alpha ratio as an optimal QEEG index
Published in
Clinical Neurophysiology, July 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.clinph.2015.07.014
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simon Finnigan, Andrew Wong, Stephen Read

Abstract

Quantitative electroencephalographic (QEEG) indices sensitive to abnormal slow (relative to faster) activity power seem uniquely informative for clinical management of ischaemic stroke (IS), including around acute reperfusion therapies. However these have not been compared between IS and control samples. The primary objective was to identify the QEEG slowing index and threshold value which can most accurately discriminate between IS patients and controls. The samples comprised 28 controls (mean age: 70.4; range: 56-84) and 18 patients (mean age: 69.3; range: 51-86). Seven indices were analysed: relative bandpower (delta, theta, alpha, beta), delta/alpha power ratio (DAR), (delta+theta)/(alpha+beta) ratio (DTABR) and QSLOWING. The accuracies of each index for classifying participants (IS or control) were analysed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) techniques. All indices differed significantly between the samples (p<.001). DAR alone exhibited optimal classifier accuracy, with a threshold of 3.7 demonstrating 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity for discriminating between radiologically-confirmed, acute IS or control. DTABR and relative delta were the next most accurate classifiers. DAR of 3.7 demonstrated maximal accuracy for classifying all 46 participants as acute IS or control. DAR assessment may inform clinical management of IS and perhaps other neurocritical patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 207 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 <1%
Unknown 206 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 30 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 12%
Student > Master 23 11%
Researcher 22 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 7%
Other 37 18%
Unknown 56 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 35 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 35 17%
Engineering 28 14%
Psychology 17 8%
Computer Science 11 5%
Other 21 10%
Unknown 60 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 May 2022.
All research outputs
#8,262,445
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Neurophysiology
#1,296
of 5,357 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,316
of 275,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Neurophysiology
#24
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,357 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 275,281 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.