Nonrandomness, nonlinear dependence, and nonstationarity of electroencephalographic recordings from epilepsy patients

To derive tests for randomness, nonlinear-independence, and stationarity, we combine surrogates with a nonlinear prediction error, a nonlinear interdependence measure, and linear variability measures, respectively. We apply these tests to intracranial electroencephalographic recordings (EEG) from patients suffering from pharmacoresistant focal-onset epilepsy. These recordings had been performed prior to and independent from our study as part of the epilepsy diagnostics. The clinical purpose of these recordings was to delineate the brain areas to be surgically removed in each individual patient in order to achieve seizure control. This allowed us to define two distinct sets of signals: One set of signals recorded from brain areas where the first ictal EEG signal changes were detected as judged by expert visual inspection ("focal signals") and one set of signals recorded from brain areas that were not involved at seizure onset ("nonfocal signals"). We find more rejections for both the randomness and the nonlinear-independence test for focal versus nonfocal signals. In contrast more rejections of the stationarity test are found for nonfocal signals. Furthermore, while for nonfocal signals the rejection of the stationarity test increases the rejection probability of the randomness and nonlinear-independence test substantially, we find a much weaker influence for the focal signals. In consequence, the contrast between the focal and nonfocal signals obtained from the randomness and nonlinear-independence test is further enhanced when we exclude signals for which the stationarity test is rejected. To study the dependence between the randomness and nonlinear-independence test we include only focal signals for which the stationarity test is not rejected. We show that the rejection of these two tests correlates across signals. The rejection of either test is, however, neither necessary nor sufficient for the rejection of the other test. Thus, our results suggest that EEG signals from epileptogenic brain areas are less random, more nonlinear-dependent, and more stationary compared to signals recorded from nonepileptogenic brain areas. We provide the data, source code, and detailed results in the public domain.

Trial history biases the spatial programming of antisaccades

The historical context in which saccades are made influences their latency and error rates, but less is known about how context influences their spatial parameters. We recently described a novel spatial bias for antisaccades, in which the endpoints of these responses deviate towards alternative goal locations used in the same experimental block, and showed that expectancy (prior probability) is at least partly responsible for this 'alternate-goal bias'. In this report we asked whether trial history also plays a role. Subjects performed antisaccades to a stimulus randomly located on the horizontal meridian, on a 40° angle downwards from the horizontal meridian, or on a 40° upward angle, with all three locations equally probable on any given trial. We found that the endpoints of antisaccades were significantly displaced towards the goal location of not only the immediately preceding trial (n - 1) but also the penultimate (n - 2) trial. Furthermore, this bias was mainly present for antisaccades with a short latency of <250 ms and was rapidly corrected by secondary saccades. We conclude that the location of recent antisaccades biases the spatial programming of upcoming antisaccades, that this historical effect persists over many seconds, and that it influences mainly rapidly generated eye movements. Because corrective saccades eliminate the historical bias, we suggest that the bias arises in processes generating the response vector, rather than processes generating the perceptual estimate of goal location.

Medication errors in a swiss cardiovascular surgery department: a cross-sectional study based on a novel medication error report method

The purpose of this study was (1) to determine frequency and type of medication errors (MEs), (2) to assess the number of MEs prevented by registered nurses, (3) to assess the consequences of ME for patients, and (4) to compare the number of MEs reported by a newly developed medication error self-reporting tool to the number reported by the traditional incident reporting system. We conducted a cross-sectional study on ME in the Cardiovascular Surgery Department of Bern University Hospital in Switzerland. Eligible registered nurses (n = 119) involving in the medication process were included. Data on ME were collected using an investigator-developed medication error self reporting tool (MESRT) that asked about the occurrence and characteristics of ME. Registered nurses were instructed to complete a MESRT at the end of each shift even if there was no ME. All MESRTs were completed anonymously. During the one-month study period, a total of 987 MESRTs were returned. Of the 987 completed MESRTs, 288 (29%) indicated that there had been an ME. Registered nurses reported preventing 49 (5%) MEs. Overall, eight (2.8%) MEs had patient consequences. The high response rate suggests that this new method may be a very effective approach to detect, report, and describe ME in hospitals.

Practical sources of error in measuring pulmonary artery occlusion pressure: a study in participants of a special intensivist training program of The Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (SSAI)

BACKGROUND: Physiological data obtained with the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) are susceptible to errors in measurement and interpretation. Little attention has been paid to the relevance of errors in hemodynamic measurements performed in the intensive care unit (ICU). The aim of this study was to assess the errors related to the technical aspects (zeroing and reference level) and actual measurement (curve interpretation) of the pulmonary artery occlusion pressure (PAOP). METHODS: Forty-seven participants in a special ICU training program and 22 ICU nurses were tested without pre-announcement. All participants had previously been exposed to the clinical use of the method. The first task was to set up a pressure measurement system for PAC (zeroing and reference level) and the second to measure the PAOP. RESULTS: The median difference from the reference mid-axillary zero level was - 3 cm (-8 to + 9 cm) for physicians and -1 cm (-5 to + 1 cm) for nurses. The median difference from the reference PAOP was 0 mmHg (-3 to 5 mmHg) for physicians and 1 mmHg (-1 to 15 mmHg) for nurses. When PAOP values were adjusted for the differences from the reference transducer level, the median differences from the reference PAOP values were 2 mmHg (-6 to 9 mmHg) for physicians and 2 mmHg (-6 to 16 mmHg) for nurses. CONCLUSIONS: Measurement of the PAOP is susceptible to substantial error as a result of practical mistakes. Comparison of results between ICUs or practitioners is therefore not possible.