Cross-Anesthetic ECoG State Decoding Fails at the Decision Threshold, Not the Representation

Kunkun Zhang; Qianwei Zhou

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 25 references

Cross-Anesthetic ECoG State Decoding Fails at the Decision Threshold, Not the Representation

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Cross-drug anesthesia decoding fails at the threshold, not at the representation.

desk verdict Clean separation of ranking from threshold in cross-drug decoding, with an honest but important caveat that the 'representation transfers' claim is session-level while real decisions happen per epoch. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02646 v1 pith:AXZNTWEL submitted 2026-07-31 q-bio.QM cs.AI

Kunkun Zhang , Qianwei Zhou This is my paper · ORCID

classification q-bio.QMcs.AI

keywords anesthesiadepthmonitoringelectrocorticographycalibrationdomainadaptationtransferlearningketamineAUROCdecisionthreshold

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper separates two failure modes that a single accuracy number fuses: a decoder can lose the neural distinction under a new drug, or keep the distinction intact and simply place its decision boundary wrongly. The paper argues that, in mouse ECoG with leave-one-anesthetic-out evaluation, the distinction transfers across five mechanistically distinct anesthetics while the inherited boundary does not. A spatially blind band-power model ranks awake versus anesthetized on every held-out drug, including ketamine, yet at the threshold trained on the other drugs it calls all ketamine anesthetized sessions awake. The practical stake is that the right fix is recalibrating the decision point with a pre-induction baseline, not enriching features or applying domain adaptation. That matters for depth-of-anesthesia monitoring, where ketamine is the notorious transfer failure and the standard remedy points at the wrong quantity.

What carries the argument

The central decomposition is the pair of metrics applied to the same decoder output: session-level AUROC, which is invariant to where the decision boundary sits, and balanced accuracy at a fixed threshold, which is not. Around that pair the paper builds leave-one-anesthetic-out evaluation across five drugs, a baseline-anchored threshold set at the 95th percentile of the held-out drug's own pre-induction awake scores, and mouse-level cluster bootstrapping to hedge the small ketamine sample. The band-power decoder is deliberately simple, using eight log band-power features pooled across channels, so that any transfer can be attributed to the signal rather than spatial structure. Riemannian domain adaptation is included as the standard field remedy and is evaluated as a non-causal upper bound, meaning even its best-case numbers cannot be achieved online.

What would settle it

Record many more ketamine anesthesia sessions (at least twenty effect sessions across at least five mice), score them with the same band-power decoder trained on the other four drugs, and compute AUROC at the epoch level and at the session level with confidence intervals that account for within-mouse and within-session correlation; if the session-level AUROC confidence interval includes 0.5, or the epoch-level AUROC stays near 0.5, the claim that the representation transfers is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under leave-one-anesthetic-out evaluation on mouse ECoG, a spatially blind band-power decoder ranks awake versus anesthetized correctly on every held-out drug, including ketamine (session AUROC 0.980; mouse-cluster CI [0.821, 1.000]), yet at the decision threshold inherited from the other four drugs it labels all ketamine effect sessions as awake, giving a balanced accuracy of 0.500. Across three representations the ketamine ranking stays nearly invariant (session AUROC 0.98, 0.94, 0.96) while thresholded accuracy swings from 0.500 to 0.850, and a permutation test is significant for ranking (p = 0.0025) but not for fixed-threshold accuracy (p = 0.3795). The paper concludes that the neural representation of anesthetic state transfers across drugs and that the failure is confined to calibration. A label-free threshold anchored to the subject's own pre-induction baseline repairs ketamine (balanced accuracy 0.850) and outperforms Riemannian domain adaptation, which is net-negative on average. The authors scope the ketamine finding to within-subject cross-drug transfer, based on five effect sessions from three mice, and explicitly decline to claim population-level transfer across subjects.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that ketamine's brain signal still separates from the awake state rests on only five anesthetized ketamine sessions from three mice, with the high ranking coming partly from averaging many overlapping time windows; if a larger or properly de-correlated sample does not keep the ranking above chance, the central claim fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Cross-drug transfer of a state decoder should be reported with at least two metrics, a threshold-invariant ranking metric and a thresholded accuracy, because they can disagree completely in the same fold.
Riemannian domain adaptation should not be assumed to help cross-drug transfer: in this preparation it is net-negative on average and buys the ketamine fold only by damaging dexmedetomidine and isoflurane.
A threshold anchored to the subject's pre-induction awake baseline, using no anesthetized labels and no new model, is a deployable correction that raises mean balanced accuracy from 0.813 to 0.858 and fixes ketamine from 0.500 to 0.850.
Applying the same baseline information at the feature level and retraining does not fix ketamine (balanced accuracy stays 0.500), so the locus of the correction matters, not just the information content.
The validity of baseline anchoring is predictable: it helps when the pre-drug and post-drug awake spectra match and hurts when they differ, with base-versus-post separability rank-ordering the gains across the five drugs (Spearman rho = -1.000, n = 5, suggestive).

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the same decomposition holds in human scalp EEG, the fastest route to a ketamine-tolerant depth monitor may be recalibrating the decision boundary from a short pre-induction baseline rather than redesigning the classifier; this is testable now on existing human ketamine datasets.
The gap between epoch-level AUROC (0.68) and session-level AUROC (0.98) implies that averaging many overlapping epochs inflates the apparent transfer, so a fair deployment test should use non-overlapping or properly de-correlated windows.
The fact that the same baseline information succeeds as a threshold shift but fails as feature normalization suggests that for covariate shifts with a known generator, the locus of the fix may matter more than the information content; analogous tests with sleep or sedation data could reveal whether threshold misplacement is the generic failure mode.
The paper's high-frequency ablation (ketamine AUROC rising from 0.767 to 0.867 when bands extend to 200 Hz) predicts that re-acquiring wideband ECoG above 250 Hz would further separate ketamine's anesthetized and awake states, directly testing the proposed high-frequency mechanism.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper does something genuinely useful: it stops treating cross-drug decoder failure as a single accuracy number and separates the ranking question (does the anesthetic state still order correctly?) from the threshold question (does the inherited boundary sit in the right place?). In a controlled mouse ECoG preparation with five mechanistically distinct anesthetics and strict leave-one-drug-out, the band-power representation ranks every held-out drug at session AUROC ≥0.96, including ketamine, while fixed-threshold balanced accuracy collapses to chance. That dissociation, backed by a permutation test that is significant for ranking but not for thresholded accuracy, is the core contribution. The baseline-anchored threshold—using only pre-induction awake scores, no anesthetized labels—is a simple, deployable correction that dominates Riemannian domain adaptation in their comparison. The authors are also admirably scoped: they call the ketamine result within-subject, label RA as a non-causal upper bound, and report the wide mouse-cluster confidence intervals. Now the soft spots, in proportion. The biggest is exactly what the stress-test note flags: the representation claim rests on session-level AUROC, but the decoder operates on 2-s epochs, and the ketamine epoch-level AUROC is only 0.68. That means the strong 'representation transfers' statement is at a coarser timescale than the actual decision. The paper is honest about this—epoch-level is reported only descriptively—but the abstract and framing let the session-level number carry the headline. If a reader thinks the baseline calibration gives 0.85 balanced accuracy per epoch, that is not supported; the epoch-level bound is closer to 0.65–0.70. So the deployable-fix claim is overstated unless clarified to session-level decision-making, which is not how such a decoder would run. Second, the ketamine evidence is thin: five effect sessions, three mice, and no novel-subject ketamine testing. The cluster bootstrap is appropriate and the CI touches 0.51 for the calibration gain, so the magnitude of the fix is uncertain. Third, no public code or data, which matters for a result this counter to the field's default reflex. None of this sinks the paper. The core dissociation is a real empirical observation, the statistics are handled carefully (session-level inference, cluster bootstrap, permutation tests), and the limitations are disclosed rather than buried. I would send this to peer review without hesitation, but I would ask the authors to either provide epoch-level balanced accuracy for the baseline-calibrated threshold or explicitly state that the reported 0.85 is a session-level aggregate. The paper is for anyone working on transfer learning in brain-state decoding, anesthesia monitoring, or calibration under distribution shift. It deserves a serious referee, and the right revision will make the timescale of the claim unambiguous.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper dissociates representation from decision-threshold failures in leave-one-anesthetic-out (LOAO) decoding of awake versus anesthetized states from mouse ECoG. A spatially blind band-power decoder ranks each held-out drug at session-level AUROC ≥0.96 (ketamine 0.980), yet at the inherited 0.5 threshold it labels nearly all ketamine effect sessions awake (balanced accuracy 0.500). A causal, label-free threshold set to the 95th percentile of each drug's pre-induction awake scores raises ketamine session-level balanced accuracy to 0.850 and, on average, outperforms Riemannian domain adaptation, which is net-negative. All inferential statistics are session-level with mouse-cluster bootstrapping for the ketamine fold; the epoch-level AUROC for ketamine is reported descriptively as 0.680. The authors explicitly scope the result to within-subject cross-drug transfer, to the ≤250 Hz LFP band, and to the small ketamine sample (5 effect sessions from 3 mice).

Significance. If the dissociation holds, the paper makes a valuable methodological point: in transfer settings, a ranking metric (AUROC) and a thresholded metric (balanced accuracy) can diverge, and calibration should be reported and corrected separately from representation quality. The baseline-anchored threshold is simple, causal, and label-free, and it is contrasted honestly with a non-causal Riemannian domain-adaptation upper bound. The authors are commendably transparent: q=0.95 was fixed a priori, RA is labeled a non-causal upper bound throughout, the ketamine power ceiling is stated repeatedly, and the epoch-level AUROC is disclosed. However, the headline conclusion—that the failure is 'not the representation'—is stronger than what the session-level evidence supports, because the decoder's own decision timescale is the epoch, and the paper's reported epoch-level separation is only 0.680. This mismatch must be addressed before the central claim is publishable at face value.

major comments (2)

[III.A and Methods F] The central claim that the ketamine representation transfers is supported only by session-level AUROC (0.980; 95% CI [0.885, 1.000] session-level, [0.821, 1.000] mouse-cluster), while the paper's own epoch-level AUROC for ketamine is 0.680, described as descriptive. The BP decoder emits per-epoch scores and the decision threshold is applied to those scores, so the ranking at the actual decision timescale is 0.68, not 0.98. With an ROC AUC of 0.68, no threshold shift can yield epoch-level balanced accuracy much above roughly 0.65–0.70; therefore the reported 0.850 calibrated balanced accuracy in Table II must reflect session-level aggregation of up to 186 overlapping, autocorrelated epochs. The dissociation 'ranking preserved, threshold mis-scaled' is thus demonstrated only for session-averaged scores, not for the per-epoch decisions on which the decoder operates. Please report the baseline-anchored threshold's balanced accuracy at the epoch level for ketamine (and ideally for all drugs), or explicitly redefine the decision unit as the session average and adjust the title and abstract accordingly. Without this, the conclusion that the failure is 'not the representation' is not established at the timescale of actual decisions. The same caveat applies to the permutation test: the significant ranking result (p=0.0025) is computed on session-level AUROC and cannot establish that the per-epoch representation is intact.
[Results D and Abstract] The abstract states that baseline calibration 'fixes ketamine (balanced accuracy 0.50 to 0.85)', but the mouse-cluster 95% CI for this estimate is [0.510, 1.000], which includes chance. Although the text reports this honestly in Section III.D, the abstract and the phrase 'fixes ketamine' overstate the strength of the correction. Please either add the CI to the abstract/conclusion or soften the wording to indicate that the point improvement is not statistically tight given the three-mouse, five-effect-session ceiling.

minor comments (6)

[Title page] The second author name appears as 'Qianwei zhou'; the surname should be capitalized as 'Qianwei Zhou'.
[References [6], [9], [24]] Several references contain placeholder text 'pMID: ...' and 'verify volume/pages at typesetting'; these must be resolved before publication.
[Methods D] The abbreviation 'OAS' (Oracle Approximating Shrinkage) is used without definition or citation; please define it on first use.
[Results D] The metric 'effect-called-awake' is introduced with values '1.00→0.20' without a definition; please state explicitly that it is the fraction of anesthetized sessions whose mean epoch score falls below the threshold.
[Results A] The sentence 'the lower bound falls ~0.06 but remains far from chance' is imprecise; it would be clearer to state that the lower bound drops from 0.885 to 0.821 under mouse-cluster resampling.
[Section IV.C] There is a typo in 'for a statedecoder it should not be corrected away'; it should be 'for a state decoder'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: held-out drug evaluation, a label-free baseline threshold, and explicit non-causal bounds keep the derivation self-contained.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are evaluated on held-out anesthetics: the band-power decoder is trained on four drugs and tested on the fifth, so the reported session AUROC values (ketamine 0.980, all drugs >=0.96) are genuine out-of-drug rankings, not refits. The baseline-anchored threshold is set exclusively from the held-out drug's own pre-induction awake (base) sessions, so it uses no anesthetized labels and is causal; the q=0.95 value is declared a priori with a full q-sweep reported. The permutation tests shuffle session labels, and the representation/alignment contrast (BP, RN, RA) is an evaluation of three fixed decoders rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. RA is explicitly labeled a non-causal upper bound and is used as a comparison ceiling, not as evidence for the main claim. The epoch-level AUROC of 0.68 versus the session-level 0.98 is a statistical validity concern about temporal averaging and small session count, not a circularity: the session-level metric is not defined in terms of the threshold claim, and the authors openly state the epoch-level result is descriptive. No load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs, and there is no reliance on author self-citation or an imported uniqueness theorem. The within-subject scope is disclosed, and the wide mouse-cluster confidence intervals are honestly reported, so the derivation chain remains externally anchored to the held-out data.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No invented entities are introduced. Two free parameters are analysis choices: the calibration percentile q (fixed a priori, robust to sweep) and the per-session epoch cap. The main load-bearing axioms are the validity of protocol-phase labels as ground truth, the sufficiency of the <=250 Hz LFP band, and the statistical validity of session-level and cluster-bootstrap aggregation.

free parameters (2)

baseline threshold percentile q = 0.95
Decision threshold for calibration is set to the 95th percentile of the held-out drug's own pre-induction base scores; fixed a priori, and ketamine balanced accuracy is robust to q=0.90, 0.95, 0.99 (Results D).
per-session epoch cap = 186 epochs
Each session is capped at 186 overlapping 2 s epochs by uniform sub-sampling, jointly fixing the awake/anesthetized class imbalance and long-session dominance (Methods C); this is a preprocessing choice that affects session-level AUROC.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Protocol phase labels (base, effect, post) are ground truth for awake versus anesthetized
Labels are carried from the paired imaging session's phase timing; the paper explicitly treats these as ground-truth labels and does not claim an independent consciousness readout (Methods B, Discussion C).
domain assumption The Intan LFP band (<=250 Hz) is sufficient to rank awake versus anesthetized for all five anesthetics
The analysis is restricted to the 250 Hz bandlimited LFP sampled at 1875 Hz; high-gamma above 250 Hz is unavailable, and the paper limits all claims to this band (Methods A, Limitations E).
domain assumption Session-level aggregation over up to 186 autocorrelated epochs yields valid AUROC estimates
Because epochs overlap 50% and are autocorrelated, all inferential statistics are computed at session level; epoch-level AUROC is descriptive only (Methods F, Results A).
domain assumption Mouse-level cluster bootstrap is an appropriate correction for within-mouse dependence in the ketamine fold
For ketamine, sessions are resampled by mouse first and then by session within mouse, yielding wider CIs (Methods F, Results A).
standard math Riemannian geometry and tangent-space projection are valid for covariance matrices of ECoG epochs
Standard SPD manifold methods cited from prior BCI literature [15]-[17].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cross-Anesthetic ECoG State Decoding Fails at the Decision Threshold, Not the Representation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AXZNTWEL

@misc{pith2026260802646,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cross-Anesthetic ECoG State Decoding Fails at the Decision Threshold, Not the Representation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AXZNTWEL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02646}
}

read the original abstract

Decoders of anesthetic state from cortical activity fail across drug classes, most notoriously ketamine, but reported accuracy cannot say whether the neural representation or only the decision threshold has failed; we separate the two in a controlled preparation with ground-truth labels. We decoded awake versus anesthetized from mouse electrocorticography (the 250-Hz-bandlimited local field potential, sampled at 1875 Hz) under leave-one-anesthetic-out evaluation across five mechanistically distinct anesthetics (isoflurane, dexmedetomidine, ketamine, propofol, and midazolam), comparing a spatially blind band-power decoder, covariance/Riemannian representations, and Riemannian domain adaptation, with all statistics at the session level and mouse-level cluster bootstrapping for the ketamine fold. The representation transfers: band-power ranks awake versus anesthetized at a session AUROC of at least 0.96 on every held-out drug, ketamine included (0.980, cluster confidence interval 0.821 to 1.000). The failure is confined to the threshold: across three representations the ketamine ranking is near-invariant while its balanced accuracy swings from chance to high, and a permutation test is significant for ranking (p = 0.0025) but not for fixed-threshold accuracy (p = 0.3795). Riemannian domain adaptation is net-negative. A causal, label-free threshold anchored to the subject's own pre-induction baseline fixes ketamine (balanced accuracy 0.50 to 0.85) and dominates domain adaptation. Because the ketamine test sessions come from three mice that also contribute training drugs, this is within-subject cross-drug transfer; we do not claim population-level transfer across subjects. In cross-drug state decoding the actionable failure is calibration, not representation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02646 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Ranking transfers; the threshold breaks. Leave-one-anestheticout, five held-out drugs, three decoders: band-power (BP, 8-dim, spatially blind), covariance-tangent (RN), and Riemannian domain adaptation (RA, a non-causal upper bound). (a) Session AUROC—bandpower ranks every drug ≥ 0.96, while the covariance methods lose ranking on dexmedetomidine and isoflurane, so a richer representation does not help. (b) Balan… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Epoch-score shift, not a resolvable split. Per-epoch band-power scores for the ketamine fold: ketamine-effect (mean 0.215) sits above ketamine-awake (0.107)—ranking preserved—but far below sourceeffect (0.762), with 89% of ketamine-effect epochs below 0.5. The ketamine-effect distribution is unimodal (Hartigan dip p = 0.97; also at 0.5 s windows, p = 0.99), so the shift is not a resolvable mix of awake-like and ane… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** A deployable fix that dominates domain adaptation. Perfold balanced accuracy for the fixed-0.5 threshold, baseline-anchored calibration (q=0.95), RA (non-causal upper bound), and the oracle ceiling. Baseline calibration fixes ketamine (0.500 → 0.850, matching the oracle direction) while leaving dexmedetomidine/isoflurane/propofol untouched, whereas RA buys ketamine only by damaging dexmedetomidine and isoflurane. … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

[1]

Different conditions that could result in the bispectral index indicating an incorrect hypnotic state,

A. A. Dahaba, “Different conditions that could result in the bispectral index indicating an incorrect hypnotic state,”Anesth. Analg., vol. 101, no. 3, pp. 765–773, 2005

work page 2005
[2]

Clinical electroencephalography for anesthesiologists: Part I: Background and basic signatures,

P. L. Purdon, A. Sampson, K. J. Pavone, and E. N. Brown, “Clinical electroencephalography for anesthesiologists: Part I: Background and basic signatures,”Anesthesiology, vol. 123, no. 4, pp. 937–960, 2015

work page 2015
[3]

Electroencephalogram signatures of loss and recovery of consciousness from propofol,

P. L. Purdon, E. T. Pierce, E. A. Mukamelet al., “Electroencephalogram signatures of loss and recovery of consciousness from propofol,”Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, vol. 110, no. 12, pp. E1142–E1151, 2013

work page 2013
[4]

A comparison of propofol- and dexmedetomidine-induced electroencephalogram dynam- ics using spectral and coherence analysis,

O. Akeju, K. J. Pavone, M. B. Westoveret al., “A comparison of propofol- and dexmedetomidine-induced electroencephalogram dynam- ics using spectral and coherence analysis,”Anesthesiology, vol. 121, no. 5, pp. 978–989, 2014

work page 2014
[5]

Electroencephalogram signatures of ketamine anesthesia-induced unconsciousness,

O. Akeju, A. H. Song, A. E. Hamiloset al., “Electroencephalogram signatures of ketamine anesthesia-induced unconsciousness,”Clin. Neu- rophysiol., vol. 127, no. 6, pp. 2414–2422, 2016

work page 2016
[6]

Monitoring the depth of anesthesia using entropy features and an artificial neural network,

R. Shalbaf, H. Behnam, and H. Jelveh Moghadam, “Monitoring the depth of anesthesia using entropy features and an artificial neural network,”J. Neurosci. Methods, 2013, pMID: 23567809; verify vol- ume/pages at typesetting

work page 2013
[7]

Use of multiple EEG features and artificial neural network to monitor the depth of anesthesia,

Y . Gu, Z. Liang, and S. Hagihira, “Use of multiple EEG features and artificial neural network to monitor the depth of anesthesia,”Sensors, vol. 19, no. 11, p. 2499, 2019

work page 2019
[8]

Design and implementation of a machine learning based EEG processor for accurate estimation of depth of anesthesia,

W. Saadeh, F. H. Khan, and M. A. B. Altaf, “Design and implementation of a machine learning based EEG processor for accurate estimation of depth of anesthesia,”IEEE Trans. Biomed. Circuits Syst., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 658–669, 2019

work page 2019

Show all 25 references

[9]

Electroencephalogram based detection of deep sedation in ICU patients using atomic decom- position,

S. B. Nagaraj, L. M. McClain, D. W. Zhouet al., “Electroencephalogram based detection of deep sedation in ICU patients using atomic decom- position,”IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., 2018, pMID: 29993386; verify volume/pages/DOI at typesetting

2018
[10]

Novel drug- independent sedation level estimation based on machine learning of quantitative frontal electroencephalogram features in healthy volun- teers,

S. M. Ramaswamy, M. H. Kuizenga, M. A. S. Weerink, H. E. M. Vereecke, M. M. R. F. Struys, and S. B. Nagaraj, “Novel drug- independent sedation level estimation based on machine learning of quantitative frontal electroencephalogram features in healthy volun- teers,”Br . J. Anae...

2019
[11]

Frontal elec- troencephalogram based drug, sex, and age independent sedation level prediction using non-linear machine learning algorithms,

S. M. Ramaswamy, M. H. Kuizenga, M. A. S. Weerink, H. E. M. Vereecke, M. M. R. F. Struys, and S. Belur Nagaraj, “Frontal elec- troencephalogram based drug, sex, and age independent sedation level prediction using non-linear machine learning algorithms,”J. Clin. Monit. Comput.,...

2022
[12]

Inference of brain states under anesthesia with meta learning based deep learning models,

Q. Wang, F. Liu, G. Wan, and Y . Chen, “Inference of brain states under anesthesia with meta learning based deep learning models,”IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng., vol. 30, pp. 1081–1091, 2022

2022
[13]

Machine learning of EEG spectra classifies unconsciousness during GABAergic anesthesia,

J. H. Abel, M. A. Badgeley, B. Meschede-Krasaet al., “Machine learning of EEG spectra classifies unconsciousness during GABAergic anesthesia,”PLoS One, vol. 16, no. 5, p. e0246165, 2021

2021
[14]

Improved tracking of sevoflurane anesthetic states with drug-specific machine learning models,

K. Kashkooli, S. L. Polk, E. Y . Hahmet al., “Improved tracking of sevoflurane anesthetic states with drug-specific machine learning models,”J. Neural Eng., vol. 17, no. 4, p. 046020, 2020

2020
[15]

Multiclass brain- computer interface classification by Riemannian geometry,

A. Barachant, S. Bonnet, M. Congedo, and C. Jutten, “Multiclass brain- computer interface classification by Riemannian geometry,”IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 920–928, 2012

2012
[16]

Riemannian approaches in brain- computer interfaces: A review,

F. Yger, M. Berar, and F. Lotte, “Riemannian approaches in brain- computer interfaces: A review,”IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng., vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 1753–1762, 2017

2017
[17]

Transfer learning: A Riemannian geometry framework with applications to brain- computer interfaces,

P. Zanini, M. Congedo, C. Jutten, S. Said, and Y . Berthoumieu, “Transfer learning: A Riemannian geometry framework with applications to brain- computer interfaces,”IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. 65, no. 5, pp. 1107–1116, 2018

2018
[18]

Transfer learning for brain-computer interfaces: A Euclidean space data alignment approach,

H. He and D. Wu, “Transfer learning for brain-computer interfaces: A Euclidean space data alignment approach,”IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 399–410, 2020

2020
[19]

An introduction to ROC analysis,

T. Fawcett, “An introduction to ROC analysis,”Pattern Recognit. Lett., vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 861–874, 2006

2006
[20]

The use of the area under the ROC curve in the evaluation of machine learning algorithms,

A. P. Bradley, “The use of the area under the ROC curve in the evaluation of machine learning algorithms,”Pattern Recognit., vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 1145–1159, 1997

1997
[21]

Assessing the performance of prediction models: A framework for traditional and novel measures,

E. W. Steyerberg, A. J. Vickers, N. R. Cooket al., “Assessing the performance of prediction models: A framework for traditional and novel measures,”Epidemiology, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 128–138, 2010

2010
[22]

Compara- tive effects of ketamine on bispectral index and spectral entropy of the electroencephalogram under sevoflurane anaesthesia,

P. Hans, P.-Y . Dewandre, J. F. Brichant, and V . Bonhomme, “Compara- tive effects of ketamine on bispectral index and spectral entropy of the electroencephalogram under sevoflurane anaesthesia,”Br . J. Anaesth., vol. 94, no. 3, pp. 336–340, 2005

2005
[23]

The effect of ketamine on clinical endpoints of hypnosis and EEG variables during propofol infusion,

T. Sakai, H. Singh, W. D. Mi, T. Kudo, and A. Matsuki, “The effect of ketamine on clinical endpoints of hypnosis and EEG variables during propofol infusion,”Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand., vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 212– 216, 1999

1999
[24]

Effects of ketamine and nitrous oxide on the bispectral index during propofol-fentanyl anaesthesia,

K. Hirota, T. Kubota, H. Ishihara, and A. Matsuki, “Effects of ketamine and nitrous oxide on the bispectral index during propofol-fentanyl anaesthesia,”Eur . J. Anaesthesiol., vol. 16, no. 11, pp. 779–783, 1999, pMID: 10713872

1999
[25]

Existence of multiple transitions of the critical state due to anesthetics,

D. Curic, D. M. Ashby, A. McGirr, and J. Davidsen, “Existence of multiple transitions of the critical state due to anesthetics,”Nat. Commun., vol. 15, p. 7025, 2024

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Different conditions that could result in the bispectral index indicating an incorrect hypnotic state,

A. A. Dahaba, “Different conditions that could result in the bispectral index indicating an incorrect hypnotic state,”Anesth. Analg., vol. 101, no. 3, pp. 765–773, 2005

work page 2005

[2] [2]

Clinical electroencephalography for anesthesiologists: Part I: Background and basic signatures,

P. L. Purdon, A. Sampson, K. J. Pavone, and E. N. Brown, “Clinical electroencephalography for anesthesiologists: Part I: Background and basic signatures,”Anesthesiology, vol. 123, no. 4, pp. 937–960, 2015

work page 2015

[3] [3]

Electroencephalogram signatures of loss and recovery of consciousness from propofol,

P. L. Purdon, E. T. Pierce, E. A. Mukamelet al., “Electroencephalogram signatures of loss and recovery of consciousness from propofol,”Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, vol. 110, no. 12, pp. E1142–E1151, 2013

work page 2013

[4] [4]

A comparison of propofol- and dexmedetomidine-induced electroencephalogram dynam- ics using spectral and coherence analysis,

O. Akeju, K. J. Pavone, M. B. Westoveret al., “A comparison of propofol- and dexmedetomidine-induced electroencephalogram dynam- ics using spectral and coherence analysis,”Anesthesiology, vol. 121, no. 5, pp. 978–989, 2014

work page 2014

[5] [5]

Electroencephalogram signatures of ketamine anesthesia-induced unconsciousness,

O. Akeju, A. H. Song, A. E. Hamiloset al., “Electroencephalogram signatures of ketamine anesthesia-induced unconsciousness,”Clin. Neu- rophysiol., vol. 127, no. 6, pp. 2414–2422, 2016

work page 2016

[6] [6]

Monitoring the depth of anesthesia using entropy features and an artificial neural network,

R. Shalbaf, H. Behnam, and H. Jelveh Moghadam, “Monitoring the depth of anesthesia using entropy features and an artificial neural network,”J. Neurosci. Methods, 2013, pMID: 23567809; verify vol- ume/pages at typesetting

work page 2013

[7] [7]

Use of multiple EEG features and artificial neural network to monitor the depth of anesthesia,

Y . Gu, Z. Liang, and S. Hagihira, “Use of multiple EEG features and artificial neural network to monitor the depth of anesthesia,”Sensors, vol. 19, no. 11, p. 2499, 2019

work page 2019

[8] [8]

Design and implementation of a machine learning based EEG processor for accurate estimation of depth of anesthesia,

W. Saadeh, F. H. Khan, and M. A. B. Altaf, “Design and implementation of a machine learning based EEG processor for accurate estimation of depth of anesthesia,”IEEE Trans. Biomed. Circuits Syst., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 658–669, 2019

work page 2019