Back

Non-invasive intracranial pressure waveform reconstruction with deep learning

Goyal, A.; Zaveri, V.; Harris, C. W.; Stevens, R. D.

2026-06-15 intensive care and critical care medicine
10.64898/2026.06.07.26354958 medRxiv
Show abstract

Purpose: Continuous intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring requires invasive instrumentation, reaching only a narrow subset of critically ill patients. We tested whether deep learning models trained on routinely acquired extracranial signals can reconstruct continuous ICP waveforms at clinically relevant accuracy in an independent external cohort. Methods: In adults admitted to the ICU at a single quaternary health system, five deep learning architectures were trained on high-frequency arterial blood pressure (ABP), photoplethysmography (PPG), and electrocardiography (ECG) waveforms, using invasive (intraparenchymal) ICP as ground truth. Two fusion strategies (early and late) and three training objectives (waveform-morphology, baseline robust regression, and weighted robust regression) were evaluated. Models were externally validated on the held-out MIMIC-III Waveform Database. Performance was assessed by mean absolute error (MAE) and waveform similarity by Pearson correlation (r). Results: We analyzed data from 158 critically ill adults (~5,322 hours) across two quaternary health systems (Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore; Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston). Validation MAE ranged from 4.276 mmHg [95% CI 4.269, 4.283] (gated recurrent, late fusion) to 4.946 mmHg [95% CI 4.938, 4.956] (attention-based, early fusion), with Pearson r ranging from 0.599 [95% CI 0.599, 0.600] to 0.722 [95% CI 0.722, 0.723]. The multiscale encoder-decoder model demonstrated the most favorable MAE-correlation tradeoff. Conclusion: This is the first demonstration that continuous ICP waveform reconstruction from bedside signals generalizes across institutions at clinically relevant accuracy, establishing a foundation for non-invasive ICP monitoring and motivating validation across broader populations and ICP ranges.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
12.7%
2
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 6%
8.9%
3
Critical Care Explorations
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.9%
4
Physiological Measurement
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.9%
5
Frontiers in Neurology
102 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
5.5%
6
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 32%
4.4%
7
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.4%
50% of probability mass above
8
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 10%
3.2%
9
Imaging Neuroscience
282 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.2%
10
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
11
Nature
645 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.9%
12
NeuroImage
903 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.9%
13
Frontiers in Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
14
Clinical Chemistry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
15
Journal of Neurotrauma
31 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
16
Frontiers in Neuroscience
256 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
17
Bioinformatics
1204 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.1%
18
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 26%
1.1%
19
Frontiers in Physiology
106 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
20
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
21
Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology
34 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.1%
22
Science Translational Medicine
127 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
23
Critical Care
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
24
Circulation
74 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
25
The American Journal of Cardiology
17 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
26
BMC Medical Research Methodology
47 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
27
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
40 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.8%
28
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
29
Neurocritical Care
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
30
Patterns
78 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%