As showed in Figure 1(a), the study design is composed of three phases. In phase 1, patients were instructed to sign the informed consent one day before their surgery, and patients were required to avoid smoking or drinking coffee or caffeine-containing beverages 10 hours before the surgery. In phase 2, resting-state EEG data were collected from all patients 2 hours before the surgery (please see the following section for details about EEG data collection), and all patients were instructed to complete the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) before EEG data collection. In phase 3, postoperative pain on the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd days after the surgery was collected from all patients. Specifically, the highest postoperative pain over the past 24 hours was assessed on an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS) (0 = no pain, 10 = worst pain imaginable) at 10-14 o'clock on the 1st and 2nd days after the surgery. On the 3rd day after the surgery, the highest postoperative pain over the past 24 hours was assessed using the same NRS, but after the chest analgesic tube was removed. Please note that the highest postoperative pain over the past 24 hours was obtained by the evaluation of pain at rest and pain due to movements, e.g., coughing and breathing. As recommended by Zalon in 2014 [23], clinicians should actively intervene with patients with a pain score (i.e., NRS scores) more than 3. For this reason, patients with NRS scores higher than 3 on the 3rd day after the surgery were considered with moderate/high pain, while patients with NRS scores of 3 or lower than 3 were considered without low pain. All patients were examined by the same investigator, and all patients were reminded that they could withdraw from the experiment at any time for any reason, but none did so.

(a) Study design and the (b) flow of participants.

Please note that after EEG data collection, patients first received local anesthesia (i.e., thoracic paravertebral block at T4 and T7 on the affected side) and then received general anesthesia according to the local clinical standards to ensure the safety of the surgery. Patients received thoracic paravertebral block at T4 and T7 on the affected side with an infusion of 0.4% bupivacaine (20 ml) before general anesthesia. The induction of anesthesia was achieved using midazolam (0.02-0.04 mg/kg), propofol (1-2 mg/kg), and sufentanil (0.2-0.4 μg/kg). Then, rocuronium (0.6-1 mg/kg) was intubated with a double-lumen endotracheal tube, for which the position was confirmed by fiberoptic bronchoscopy. Anesthesia was maintained with 1% sevoflurane, propofol (0.1-0.3 μg/kg/min), and remifentanil (0.1–0.3 μg/kg/min) during the surgery. More sufentanil and rocuronium were supplied when needed, and the total amount of sufentanil should be no more than 0.6 μg/kg. Flurbiprofen axetil (100 mg) was started to be administrated 30 min before the end of the surgery. Along with the infusion of flurbiprofen axetil (8 mg/h), the patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with oxycodone (Perfusor fm PCA; single dose 1 mg, lockout 5 min, limit 8 mg/h) was used for all patients as soon as they were able to operate the system.

Patients lay in a bed with a semirecumbent position in a silent, temperature-controlled room. The EEG cap was mounted on their head with conducting gel inserted for each electrode, and all electrode impedances were kept lower than 10 kΩ. EEG data were recorded using a 32-channel NuAmps Quickcap, NuAmps DC amplifier, and Scan 4.5 Acquisition software (Compumedics Neuroscan, Inc. Charlotte, NC, USA). The NuAmps amplifier (Model 7181) was set with a sampling rate of 1000 Hz and with a signal bandpass filter from 0.01 to 100 Hz. The ground electrode was positioned 10 mm anterior to Fz, and the right mastoid electrode (M2) was used as the online reference. During EEG data collection (five minutes in total), all subjects were instructed to keep awake, relaxed, and eyes closed, since the test-retest reliability of resting-state EEG data was higher in the eyes closed condition than in the eyes open condition [24].

EEG data were preprocessed using EEGLAB [25]. Continuous EEG data were first offline rereferenced to the average bilateral mastoid electrodes (M1 and M2). Then, EEG data were bandpass filtered between 0.5 and 80 Hz and notch filtered between 48 and 52 Hz. For the artifact rejection, continuous EEG data were segmented into epochs using a time window of 5 s. EEG epochs were decomposed into a series of independent components (ICs) using the infomax algorithm as implemented in EEGLAB [25]. The number of ICs was equal to the number of EEG electrodes. ICs contaminated by eye blinks and movements were identified and removed using the SASICA algorithm [26, 27]. The number of the removed ICs was comparable for the low-pain and moderate/high-pain groups (2.7 ± 0.22 and 2.3 ± 0.21, respectively, p = 0.19). Moreover, epochs contaminated by gross artifacts (i.e., exceeding ±75 μV in any channel) were automatically rejected. The proportion of epochs rejected was not significantly different between the low-pain and moderate/high-pain groups (19 ± 4.5% and 22 ± 3.9%, respectively, p = 0.6).

For each patient, the preprocessed EEG data were transformed to the frequency domain using Welch's method (window length: 2 s; overlap: 50%) [28], yielding an EEG spectrum ranging from 0.5 to 80 Hz, in steps of 0.5 Hz. Group-level EEG spectra were obtained by calculating the average of single-patient EEG spectra in each group (i.e., moderate/high-pain group and low-pain group). To assess the group difference of EEG spectra, a point-by-point independent-sample t-test was performed for each frequency (across all frequency bins) and each electrode, and the significant level (p value) was corrected using a false discovery rate (FDR) procedure [29]. Additionally, to control for false-positive observations, the frequency intervals with a p value smaller than the defined threshold (pfdr < 0.05) for more than 5 Hz were considered as significant. Partial correlation analysis was also performed between EEG power at different frequency bands and acute postoperative pain (i.e., NRS scores on the 3rd day after the surgery) to assess their relationship while controlling for the effect of age and removing the possible outliers. Please note that the outliers were identified using the threshold of three standard deviations of EEG power, i.e., the data was identified as an outlier if its value was three standard deviations away from the mean [30].

We performed the linear discriminant analysis (LDA) [31], a typical machine learning algorithm, to predict the intensity of postoperative pain based on EEG recordings shortly before the surgery. Considering the arbitrary nature of dichotomizing the two groups, we also predicted the continuous pain ratings (i.e., the intensity of postoperative pain) using the multiple linear regression (MLR) [32]. Leave-One-Out Cross-Validation (LOOCV) [33] was used to assess the prediction performance. Specifically, LOOCV was achieved by dividing all subjects (N subjects) into N − 1 training subjects and 1 test subject, and the same procedure was repeatedly performed N times to ensure that every subject was used as the test subject once. The classification accuracy and correlation coefficient (R) between the real pain intensities and the predicted pain intensities were used to evaluate the prediction performance of LDA and MLR, respectively.

To assess the contribution of EEG feature at each electrode and each frequency on the prediction performance, the LDA and MLR were firstly performed for each electrode in the spatial domain and each frequency in the frequency domain. For both classification and regression, all EEG features were tested once, and the maximal values of prediction accuracy for classification and correlation coefficient for regression at the electrode level and the frequency level were, respectively, used to evaluate the contribution of these features in the machine learning model.

To achieve better prediction performance, EEG features at all electrodes and all frequencies (i.e., the combination of features at the spatial and frequency domains) were used in the multivariate machine learning model. In the present study, there were 160 features for each electrode (from 0.5 Hz to 80 Hz with a resolution of 0.5 Hz) and 30 electrodes. In total, the feature dimension was 4800 (160 frequency bins × 30 electrodes), and the sample size was 67 (67 patients). This is a typical small sample size pattern recognition problem with a high feature dimension. In this case, the curse of feature dimensionality is the main problem for both classification and regression. To address this issue, feature selection is required before performing prediction. In addition, feature selection is an effective strategy for dimension reduction to prevent overfitting. Here, we firstly shrunk the features in the frequency domain to the range of 20-70 Hz, since there was no significant difference between the two groups for all channels outside the frequency range (i.e., 0.5-20 Hz and 70-80 Hz). Secondly, Sequential Floating Forward Selection (SFFS) method was used as a wrapper approach for additional feature selection [29]. As a heuristic search method [34], the SFFS algorithm starts with an empty feature set and mainly consists of a forward step for inserting features and a backward step for deleting features. The forward step searches the best features outside the feature set to improve the prediction performance in the cross-validation. After each forward step, the backward step removes the feature in the feature set as long as the performance could be improved in the cross-validation. The whole process of the SFFS would stop if the prediction performance could not be improved or the feature dimension reaches 50.

Demographic information of patients in the moderate/high-pain group and the low-pain group was compared using chi-square tests (i.e., gender, education level, ASA grade, and operation type) and an independent-sample t-test (i.e., age). Group differences in HADS scores (i.e., anxiety score and depression score), doses of oxycodone, and postoperative pain (i.e., NRS scores on the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd days after the surgery) were evaluated using independent-sample t-tests. All statistical analyses were carried out in SPSS 25.0 (SPSS Inc., New York, USA), and the statistical significance level was set at 0.05.

Note: The content above has been extracted from a research article, so it may not display correctly.

Please log in to submit your questions online.
Your question will be posted on the Bio-101 website. We will send your questions to the authors of this protocol and Bio-protocol community members who are experienced with this method. you will be informed using the email address associated with your Bio-protocol account.

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By using our website, you are agreeing to allow the storage of cookies on your computer.