Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 306

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

EEG entropy measures in anesthesia

Open access
Liang, Zhenhu, Wang, Yinghua, Sun, Xue, Li, Duan, Voss, Logan J., Sleigh, Jamie W., Hagihira, Satoshi, Li, Xiaoli·2015·Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience

Abstract

HIGHLIGHTS: ► Twelve entropy indices were systematically compared in monitoring depth of anesthesia and detecting burst suppression.► Renyi permutation entropy performed best in tracking EEG changes associated with different anesthesia states.► Approximate Entropy and Sample Entropy performed best in detecting burst suppression. OBJECTIVE: Entropy algorithms have been widely used in analyzing EEG signals during anesthesia. However, a systematic comparison of these entropy algorithms in assessing anesthesia drugs' effect is lacking. In this study, we compare the capability of 12 entropy indices for monitoring depth of anesthesia (DoA) and detecting the burst suppression pattern (BSP), in anesthesia induced by GABAergic agents. METHODS: Twelve indices were investigated, namely Response Entropy (RE) and State entropy (SE), three wavelet entropy (WE) measures [Shannon WE (SWE), Tsallis WE (TWE), and Renyi WE (RWE)], Hilbert-Huang spectral entropy (HHSE), approximate entropy (ApEn), sample entropy (SampEn), Fuzzy entropy, and three permutation entropy (PE) measures [Shannon PE (SPE), Tsallis PE (TPE) and Renyi PE (RPE)]. Two EEG data sets from sevoflurane-induced and isoflurane-induced anesthesia respectively were selected to assess the capability of each entropy index in DoA monitoring and BSP detection. To validate the effectiveness of these entropy algorithms, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) modeling and prediction probability (Pk) analysis were applied. The multifractal detrended fluctuation analysis (MDFA) as a non-entropy measure was compared. RESULTS: All the entropy and MDFA indices could track the changes in EEG pattern during different anesthesia states. Three PE measures outperformed the other entropy indices, with less baseline variability, higher coefficient of determination (R (2)) and prediction probability, and RPE performed best; ApEn and SampEn discriminated BSP best. Additionally, these entropy measures showed an advantage in computation efficiency compared with MDFA. CONCLUSION: Each entropy index has its advantages and disadvantages in estimating DoA. Overall, it is suggested that the RPE index was a superior measure. Investigating the advantages and disadvantages of these entropy indices could help improve current clinical indices for monitoring DoA.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fncom.2015.00016

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 47 references

Cited by

See all 306

Metadata

Authors
Liang, Z., Wang, Y., Sun, X., Li, D., Voss, L. J., Sleigh, J. W., Hagihira, S., & Li, X.
Venue
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
Published
2015-02-18
Volume
9
Pages
16-16
ISSN
1662-5188 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1991033480
Cited by
306
References
47
FWCI
28.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: EEG entropy measures in anesthesia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3389/fncom.2015.00016
The paper
Liang, Z., Wang, Y., Sun, X., Li, D., Voss, L. J., Sleigh, J. W., Hagihira, S., & Li, X. (2015). EEG entropy measures in anesthesia. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2015.00016

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.