Balancing Sensitivity and Specificity in Ancillary Testing for BD/DNC: A Comprehensive Review from a Statistical and Clinical Perspective

Abstract

BD/DNC/Death by Neurologic Criteria (BD/DNC) represents a profound medico-legal construct, signifying the irreversible cessation of all brain functions, encompassing the cerebrum, cerebellum and brainstem. This diagnosis carries immense consequences due to its irreversible nature, directly influencing end-of-life decisions and the potential for organ donation. Legal frameworks globally, such as the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) in the United States, provide the statutory basis, stipulating that an individual is legally dead upon sustaining “irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem

Keywords: BD/DNC, Ancillary tests, Neuroimaging, Sensitivity, Specificity

1. Introduction

The Criticality of BD/DNC Diagnosis: BD/DNC/Death by Neurologic Criteria (BD/DNC) represents a profound medico-legal construct, signifying the irreversible cessation of all brain functions, encompassing the cerebrum, cerebellum and brainstem. This diagnosis carries immense consequences due to its irreversible nature, directly influencing end-of-life decisions and the potential for organ donation. Legal frameworks globally, such as the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) in the United States, provide the statutory basis, stipulating that an individual is legally dead upon sustaining “irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem”^1-3.

The concept of death itself, particularly by neurological criteria, is not immutable but has evolved significantly in response to medical advancements and societal needs. Historically, the definition of death was primarily based on the irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions. However, with the advent of life-sustaining technologies and the increasing feasibility of organ transplantation, a new understanding of death, rooted in irreversible brain function loss, became necessary. This historical progression highlights a fundamental tension between a traditional, purely clinical knowledge of death and the contemporary medical imperative for objective, verifiable data. The widespread reliance on objective testing for "virtually all clinical diagnoses" reflects a broader medical and societal shift towards quantifiable, reproducible evidence. The fact that BD/DNC, despite being "the most challenging and consequential diagnosis", has been an exception to this trend underscores a significant gap. The increasing advocacy for and integration of ancillary testing is not merely about improving accuracy, but also about aligning BD/DNC diagnosis with modern, evidence-based medical standards, thereby moving towards greater scientific rigor and public accountability in a diagnosis that carries immense societal, ethical and legal weight4-7.

While BD/DNC is fundamentally a clinical diagnosis, relying on a comprehensive history, physical examination and adherence to established criteria, the clinical assessment alone is acknowledged to be fallible. Confounding factors, including pharmacologic sedation, severe metabolic derangements or hypothermia, can significantly impair the reliability of clinical findings, leading to diagnostic uncertainty. In such challenging instances, ancillary tests become indispensable tools for supporting the diagnosis of BD/DNC. These tests serve as crucial surrogate means of assessment when essential components of the clinical BD/DNC evaluation cannot be adequately performed or reliably interpreted. In Cuba, we defend the use of ancillary tests for BD/DNC confirmation8-10.

Statistically, sensitivity quantifies a test's ability to identify true positives correctly-in this specific context, patients who truly have absent Cerebral Blood Flow (CBF). Conversely, specificity measures a test's capacity to correctly identify true negatives, effectively excluding individuals who are not brain dead. Given the irreversible and profoundly consequential nature of BD/DNC, achieving high sensitivity is paramount. False negatives, where BD/DNC is present but the test indicates otherwise, can lead to the prolongation of futile medical treatment and delay critical organ donation. While false positives are serious, the initial perspective often suggests they can be mitigated by clinical reassessment. However, a deeper examination reveals that the implications of false positives are far more severe, extending to profound legal and ethical risks. Maximizing sensitivity thus provides crucial ethical reassurance, but achieving near-perfect specificity is equally, if not more, indispensable for maintaining the legal and moral integrity of the BD/DNC diagnosis11.

2. Statistical Foundations: Sensitivity, Specificity and Clinical Implications

In the realm of diagnostic testing for BD/DNC, the statistical concepts of sensitivity and specificity are foundational. Sensitivity, in this context, is defined as the proportion of truly brain-dead patients-those with confirmed absent Cerebral Blood Flow (CBF)-who are correctly identified as such by an ancillary test. It represents the probability that a test result will be positive when the condition is genuinely present. Conversely, specificity is the proportion of patients who are not brain dead-those with preserved CBF or brain function-who are correctly identified as such by the test. It is the probability that a test result will be negative when the condition is truly absent11,12.

The consequences of diagnostic errors in BD/DNC determination are profound and multifaceted. A false negative occurs when an ancillary test incorrectly indicates the presence of CBF or brain function in a patient who is, in fact, truly brain dead. Such an error carries significant ethical and practical consequences. It can lead to the tragic prolongation of futile medical treatment, consuming scarce healthcare resources and inflicting immense emotional and financial burden on families. Furthermore, false negatives can critically delay or even prevent organ donation, thereby impacting the lives of patients awaiting life-saving transplants. Case reports highlight the potential for false-negative results to lead to diagnostic ambiguity and a lack of resolution when test results diverge. Conversely, a false positive occurs when an ancillary test incorrectly suggests absent CBF or brain function, leading to a diagnosis of BD/DNC in a patient who is not truly brain dead. While an initial perspective might suggest these could be “mitigated by clinical reassessment,” this understanding significantly understates the true gravity of such errors. False positives are deemed “significant and pressing.” If a patient is erroneously declared dead and subsequently undergoes organ retrieval, it “arguably, homicide laws are violated.” This directly undermines the legal foundation of the “dead donor rule,” which requires donors to be legally dead to protect physicians from civil and criminal liability. Public trust in the medical profession's competence and trustworthiness in determining death is paramount, necessitating “as close to zero false positives as possible.” Real-world case reports illustrate instances of false-positive BD/DNC diagnoses, sometimes reversed after the observation of spontaneous ventilation by family members, despite initial adherence to guidelines. This critical divergence from a potentially less severe initial assessment underscores that near-perfect specificity is not merely desirable but is legally and ethically indispensable to uphold the “dead donor rule” and to maintain public trust in the medical profession. The tolerance for false positives in BD/DNC diagnosis must be virtually zero, making the balance between sensitivity and specificity far more delicate and demanding than initially implied11,12.

The irreversible and profoundly consequential nature of BD/DNC mandates a diagnostic approach that prioritizes both high sensitivity and, critically, near-perfect specificity. Maximizing sensitivity provides essential ethical reassurance by ensuring that patients who are truly brain dead are accurately identified, thereby preventing the continuation of burdensome and medically futile treatments. However, the legal and ethical integrity of BD/DNC determination requires an equally stringent, if not stricter, focus on specificity. The assertion of near-perfect accuracy in BD/DNC diagnosis is fundamental for maintaining public trust and legal validity. Any perceived or actual inconsistency or error in diagnosis can “sow doubt among members of the public” and expose clinicians and institutions to a “potential source of legal exposure.”

Despite being the cornerstone of BD/DNC determination, clinical examination is explicitly stated as not infallible. Various confounding factors, including pharmacologic sedation, severe metabolic derangements or hypothermia, can significantly limit its reliability. In such challenging instances, ancillary tests become indispensable tools for supporting the diagnosis of BD/DNC. They provide objective, reproducible data, which is crucial for enhancing diagnostic accuracy and mitigating the inherent risk of error associated with clinical examination alone. This widespread reliance on confirmatory tools serves to safeguard both patients and physicians by reinforcing critical decisions with empirical evidence. The consistent assertion that BD/DNC is “primarily a clinical diagnosis” while simultaneously highlighting the “limitations of clinical examination alone” reveals a nuanced relationship. Ancillary tests are “not mandatory” but serve as a “surrogate means of assessment when clinical diagnosis cannot be made.” This implies a dynamic synergy where objective data from ancillary tests do not replace clinical judgment but rather augment, validate and enable it, particularly in complex or equivocal cases. The modern medical emphasis on “reproducible data” suggests a broader paradigm shift towards a more data-driven diagnostic approach, even for a diagnosis as fundamental as death. This dynamic indicates that the optimal approach to BD/DNC diagnosis is a synergistic one, where the expertise of clinical judgment is robustly supported and confirmed by objective ancillary testing. This integrated approach aims to achieve the highest possible diagnostic certainty, which is paramount given the irreversible consequences of the diagnosis (Table 1).

Table 1: Ethical and Legal Implications of Diagnostic Errors in BD/DNC.

3. Ancillary Testing Modalities: Performance, Advantages and Limitations

The landscape of ancillary testing for BD/DNC is diverse, offering various modalities with distinct mechanisms, performance characteristics and practical considerations. The selection of an ancillary test is frequently a pragmatic decision, requiring a careful balance between the highest possible diagnostic accuracy and the practical constraints imposed by the patient's condition, available resources and the urgency of the diagnosis. This suggests that clinical guidelines should ideally offer a tiered or scenario-specific approach, rather than a blanket endorsement or exclusion of modalities.

A. Computed Tomography (CT) Modalities

Computed Tomography Perfusion (CTP) and CT Angiography (CTA) are increasingly utilized in the assessment of BD/DNC. CTA assesses cerebral circulatory arrest by evaluating the opacification (or lack thereof) of various intracranial vessels following the injection of a contrast medium. CTP, on the other hand, provides a dynamic assessment of cerebral blood flow. Qualitative CT perfusion has demonstrated high sensitivity, achieving 98.5% despite a lower specificity of 74.4% in one study. For CTA, pooled sensitivity for a complete lack of intracranial vessel opacification was reported as 62% for the venous phase and 84% for the arterial phase. Sensitivity for CTA varies significantly based on the scoring system employed: a 4-point scale demonstrated sensitivities ranging from 88% to 96.3%, while 7-point (62.8-74.4%) and 10-point (52-67.1%) scales showed lower ranges, suggesting the 4-point scale may be more sensitive. Crucially, the use of early-phase images can significantly enhance sensitivity (from 59-91% to 94-99%) compared to relying solely on late-phase images. The absence of opacification of internal cerebral veins (ICVs) alone demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 99% and combining this with the distal middle cerebral artery branches yielded a sensitivity of 85%. Specificity for CTA is frequently reported as 100% in control groups12.

CTA offers several advantages, including high accessibility in most hospitals, high spatiotemporal resolution and a largely operator-independent nature. It is also cost-effective and provides a quick means of confirming BD/DNC. CTA has been shown to reliably support a diagnosis of BD/DNC with adequate interobserver agreement. However, a notable limitation is the occurrence of significant false-negative results, particularly in cases involving craniectomy where ICV filling may persist. The presence of skull defects (e.g., craniectomy or craniotomy) can decrease the accuracy and sensitivity of CTA, with sensitivity potentially dropping from 95.5% (intact skull) to 60% (craniectomy) using certain criteria. These false negatives are often attributed to "stasis filling," where small amounts of contrast material enter intracranial vessels despite absent brain function. Furthermore, a significant limitation is the current lack of international consensus on standardized diagnostic criteria and protocols for CTA in BD/DNC determination. The performance characteristics of ancillary tests are not static but are highly dependent on the patient's specific anatomical and physiological state. The presence of skull defects fundamentally alters the intracranial pressure dynamics that many ancillary tests rely upon for accurate assessment of absent cerebral blood flow. This necessitates the development of specific diagnostic protocols or the consideration of alternative tests in such cases, as exemplified by the French scoring systems' focus on brainstem perfusion for trauma cases13-16.

B. Transcranial Doppler (TCD) Ultrasonography

Transcranial Doppler (TCD) ultrasonography evaluates cerebral blood flow by monitoring flow velocities within the basal arteries of the brain. As intracranial pressure (ICP) rises to critical levels, it progressively impedes cerebral perfusion, leading to characteristic changes in blood flow patterns: a decrease in end-diastolic flow, followed by the appearance of systolic peaks, then oscillating flow (where systolic forward flow is counteracted by diastolic backward flow) and eventually isolated systolic spikes or a complete absence of signal. The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) reported in 2004 that TCD sensitivity for diagnosing cerebral circulatory arrest and BD/DNC ranged from 91% to 100%, with a specificity of 97% to 100%. More recent meta-analyses have reported TCD sensitivities ranging from 89% to 95% and specificities from 98% to 99% as a confirmatory test for BD/DNC16-18.

TCD is a non-invasive procedure that does not require contrast agents. It is highly portable and can be performed at the patient's bedside, a significant advantage for critically ill patients in the intensive care unit, eliminating the need for patient transport. It is also repeatable, cost-effective and notably, its results are generally unaffected by central nervous system depressants. TCD can also assist in determining the optimal timing for cerebral angiography. However, TCD is highly operator-dependent, requiring significant experience for accurate performance and interpretation. A notable limitation is “acoustic window inadequacy,” occurring in 10-20% of cases due to skull bone thickness, which can hinder signal acquisition. False negative results may occur in anoxic patients or those who have undergone decompressive surgery, as some residual blood flow can still be observed in cerebral arteries despite clinical BD/DNC, potentially delaying diagnosis. Conversely, temporary waveforms consistent with BD/DNC can be observed as false positives in cases of acute subarachnoid hemorrhage or sudden increases in ICP due to recurrent bleeding. Anatomical variations in the Circle of Willis, present in up to 50% of individuals, can also complicate interpretation. Furthermore, TCD is generally not recommended in open skull situations19-21.

C. Digital Subtraction Angiography (DSA) / Cerebral Angiography

Digital Subtraction Angiography (DSA) is widely considered the gold standard for evaluating intracranial blood flow in the context of BD/DNC diagnosis. Its availability has increased with the rise of acute neuro interventions. For BD/DNC assessment, a radiocontrast agent is injected into the aortic arch under pressure. In cases of BD/DNC, the characteristic finding is a complete absence of intracerebral contrast filling, including at the entry points of the carotid and vertebral arteries into the skull and no evidence of venous drainage. Often, the injected contrast is observed to shunt or rush into the external carotid circulation. DSA boasts exceptional diagnostic accuracy, with reported sensitivities of 100% and specificities of 100% for the diagnosis of BD/DNC. Its primary advantage is its status as the gold standard for directly visualizing and evaluating intracranial blood flow, providing definitive evidence of cerebral circulatory arrest. Despite its high accuracy, DSA has significant limitations. It is an invasive procedure and is time-consuming to perform. It necessitates transferring the critically ill patient out of the intensive care unit to a specialized angiography suite, which can be risky. There is also a risk of contrast-induced renal injury, particularly concerning potential organ donors. In some brain-dead patients, proximal opacification of the intracranial arteries due to "stasis filling" can still be observed, potentially leading to false interpretations. Clinicians must also be cautious of false-positive results in hypotensive patients and false-negative results in patients who have undergone decompressive craniectomy. Moreover, it is a resource-intensive modality. This highlights a real-world tension between the pursuit of ideal diagnostic accuracy (DSA) and the harsh realities of critical care, which demand consideration of patient stability, resource availability and diagnostic speed^22-24.

 D. Nuclear Medicine Studies (SPECT, Radionuclide Brain Perfusion Scintigraphy - RBPS)

E. Electroencephalography (EEG) and evoked potentials

Electroencephalography (EEG) detects electrical activity in the brain and is used to aid in the diagnosis of BD/DNC by demonstrating electrocerebral silence (no activity ≥ 2 μV over 30 minutes). Reported sensitivities for EEG in BD/DNC range from 53% to 80%, with a specificity of 97%. EEG is applicable at the patient's bedside and is a non-invasive procedure. Despite its advantages, EEG carries a risk of electrical interference in intensive care settings. It can produce false positive results. Its readings are significantly affected by metabolic changes and hypothermia. EEG offers low spatial resolution on the scalp and poorly measures neural activity below the upper layers of the brain (cortex). The setup process, which requires the precise placement of dozens of electrodes, is often time-consuming. Crucially, electrocerebral silence alone does not definitively confirm BD/DNC. The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) guidelines consider EEG an “unacceptable” ancillary test for BD/DNC determination1.  Nonetheless, EEG has a long history in the evolution of the concept of BD/DNC.

Despite its limitations, an electrocerebral silence correlated with clinical examination is a powerful indication of a dead brain. In primary posterior lesions, EEG can demonstrate preservation of bioelectrical activity, thereby rejecting the diagnosis of BD/DNC within the context of the whole brain framework. Machado, 2022 #13766}

Somatosensory Evoked Potentials (SSEP) and Brainstem Auditory Evoked Potentials (BAEP) are less susceptible to the effects of sedation compared to EEG. SSEP has been reported with 100% sensitivity but a lower specificity of 78%. Although the AAN no longer recommends SSEPs as an ancillary test (Greer, 2023 #17988), the author defends the use of a test battery composed of multimodality evoked potentials and electroretinography as confirmatory tests for BD/DNC confirmation4,32-34. 

F. Other Imaging Modalities (MRI/MRA)

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) can demonstrate extensive parenchymal damage with higher sensitivity than CT, but it does not provide direct information about brain function. Magnetic Resonance Angiography (MRA) can provide no visualization of intracranial arteries, with reported sensitivities ranging from 93% to 100% and specificities of 100%. However, both MRI and MRA are generally more time-consuming and less practical for critically ill patients in the ICU compared to CT or CTA (Table 2). MRI is also limited by strong magnetic field interference during intraoperative use. Like CTA, MRA currently lacks widely validated diagnostic criteria for BD/DNC35-37.

Table 2: Comparative Performance of Ancillary Tests for BD/DNC Diagnosis.

4. Clinical Context: Confounding Factors and Diagnostic Certainty

Ancillary tests are not universally mandatory but become indispensable when the clinical diagnosis of BD/DNC cannot be reliably made or adequately interpreted. Key clinical indications for ancillary testing include: the inability to safely or fully complete the apnea test (e.g., in an unstable patient), the presence of physical injuries that preclude a comprehensive cranial nerve examination (e.g., extensive facial trauma, high spinal cord injury) or when unresolvable confounding factors are present that mimic BD/DNC. Beyond resolving diagnostic uncertainty, ancillary tests may also be considered to potentially reduce observation periods, thereby increasing the viability of organs for transplantation.

A range of critical confounding factors can obscure the clinical assessment of BD/DNC, necessitating objective confirmatory testing. Hypothermia, defined as a core body temperature below 36°C (or below 32°C/90°F as per some guidelines), can profoundly depress brain function, mimicking the signs of BD/DNC and must be rigorously excluded before diagnosis. Some guidelines recommend a delay of 24 hours after return to normothermia if the temperature was below 35°C for more than 6 hours.

Drug intoxication, specifically the presence of central nervous system depressants such as barbiturates, sedatives, hypnotics or opiates, can suppress brain activity and confound the neurological examination. Specific serum drug levels (e.g., barbiturates <10 µg/mL) or an observation period equivalent to several elimination half-lives of the substance are often required to ensure drug effects have cleared. Toxicology screens are an important part of this assessment.

Neuromuscular blocking agents (paralysis) must have their residual effects definitively excluded, typically through electrical stimulation tests like train-of-four monitoring. These agents can prevent motor responses, even if brain function is present and their effects can persist for several days, especially when combined with therapeutic hypothermia.

Severe metabolic abnormalities can cause a reversible coma that mimics BD/DNC. These include hypoglycemia (glucose <0 mg/dL), hyponatremia (Na <30 mEq/L), hypokalemia, hypocalcemia, hypomagnesemia, acidosis (pH <7.2), hyperammonemia and hypothyroidism. Such abnormalities must be corrected or an ancillary test performed to confirm BD/DNC.

Hypotension or shock (e.g., systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg or mean arterial pressure <60 mmHg) can compromise cerebral perfusion and render brainstem reflex testing unreliable. Patients must be hemodynamically stable for reliable performance of ancillary tests such as TCD and RBPS. The prerequisites for performing ancillary tests consistently emphasize the need for "hemodynamically stable" patients and the exclusion of “hypotension” or “shock.” This establishes a direct causal link: physiological instability can lead to inaccurate test results (e.g., transient hypotension misconstrued as permanent absent perfusion in RBPS; false positives in TCD due to sudden ICP increases). This implies that achieving and maintaining physiological stability is not just a general patient management goal but a fundamental prerequisite for the accuracy and reliability of the ancillary tests themselves. The diagnostic process for BD/DNC is not merely a sequence of tests but a complex interplay with critical care management. The patient's overall physiological stability is intrinsically linked to the certainty and validity of the BD/DNC diagnosis.

Finally, trauma to the face or high cervical cord can physically prevent the accurate assessment of cranial nerve reflexes, necessitating the use of ancillary tests. Ancillary tests serve as surrogate assessments to mitigate diagnostic uncertainty by providing objective, measurable evidence of absent brain function or circulation, thereby significantly reducing diagnostic uncertainty when clinical assessment is compromised by these confounding factors. For instance, a positive radionuclide BD/DNC scan can conclusively confirm absent intracerebral perfusion, while CT angiography can visually demonstrate the lack of deep venous drainage. Transcranial Doppler provides real-time insights into cerebral blood flow dynamics, identifying patterns indicative of circulatory arrest. These objective findings are indispensable in situations where clinical signs are ambiguous, incomplete or unobtainable, ensuring a robust and defensible diagnosis. Even with the increasing emphasis on standardization and objective testing, the process of BD/DNC determination retains a crucial element of clinical art and expert judgment. This is particularly evident in the nuanced assessment of the impact and resolution of confounding factors. Despite specific quantitative thresholds provided for many confounding factors, clinical judgment remains the deciding factor if the primary etiology does not fully explain the clinical picture or if a metabolic abnormality “may play a role.” This underscores the continued importance of experienced physicians in navigating these complex diagnostic scenarios (Table 3).

Table 3: Common Confounding Factors in Clinical BD/DNC Assessment.

All versions of the AAN guidelines usually reject the use of confirmatory tests, except in special conditions1,2,38-41. In modern medicine, virtually all clinical diagnoses are supported by confirmatory tests-such as laboratory analyses or imaging studies-to ensure accuracy and reduce the risk of error inherent in clinical examination. These standard safeguards both patients and physicians by reinforcing diagnostic decisions with objective data. Yet, BD/DNC stands as a remarkable exception. Despite being the most challenging and consequential diagnosis, a physician can make-one that declares the end of a human life is often made without confirmatory testing. This reliance on clinical examination alone raises critical concerns about consistency, reliability and transparency in the diagnostic process. If confirmatory tests are used routinely for far less severe clinical conditions, why not in BD/DNC determination? 4,5,7,42-45.

5. Conclusion

In conclusion, the accurate determination of BD/DNC requires a synergistic approach that integrates meticulous clinical assessment with precise highly objective ancillary testing. The pursuit of both high sensitivity and near-perfect specificity is not a trade-off but a dual imperative, essential for upholding ethical principles, ensuring legal integrity and maintaining public trust in the profound act of declaring death. Continued research and international collaboration are crucial for refining diagnostic criteria further, standardizing protocols and developing even more reliable ancillary tools, ultimately enhancing the certainty and compassion with which BD/DNC is determined.

6. References

1. Greer DM, Kirschen MP, Lewis A, et al. Pediatric and Adult Brain Death/Death by Neurologic Criteria Consensus Guideline. Report of the AAN Guidelines Subcommittee, AAP, CNS and SCCM. 2023.
2. Kirschen MP, Lewis A, Greer DM. The 2023 American Academy of Neurology, American Academy of Pediatrics, Child Neurology Society and Society of Critical Care Medicine Pediatric and Adult Brain Death/Death by Neurologic Criteria Determination Consensus Guidelines: What the Critical Care Team Needs to Know 2023.
3. Lewis A, Bernat JL, Blosser S, et al. An interdisciplinary response to contemporary concerns about brain death determination. Neurology. 2018;90: 423-426.
4. Machado C. Cuba's contribution in the diagnosis of brain death/death by neurologic criteria. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2021;206: 106674.
5. Machado C. Brain Death Diagnosis in Primary Posterior Fossa Lesions. 2022;70 :670-675.
6. Machado C, Estevez M. Reader Response: Practice Current: When do you order ancillary tests to determine brain death? Neurol Clin Pract. 2018;8: 364.
7. Machado C, Perez J, Scherle C, et al. Brain death diagnosis and apnea test safety. Ann Indian Acad Neurol. 2009;12: 197-200.
8. Machado C, Estevez M, Rodriguez R, et al. A Cuban perspective on management of persistent vegetative state. MEDICC Rev. 2012;14: 44-48.
9. Machado C. A definition of human death should not be related to organ transplants. J Med Ethics. 2003;29: 201-202.
10. Machado C. Describing life to define death: a Cuban perspective. MEDICC Rev 2010;12:40.
11. Machado C. Computed Tomography Perfusion and Angiography for Death by Neurologic Criteria. JAMA Neurology. 2025.
12. Chassé M, Shankar JJS, Fergusson DA, et al. Computed Tomography Perfusion and Angiography for Death by Neurologic Criteria. JAMA Neurology. 2025.
13. Rodriguez-Vazquez A, Laredo C, Reyes L, et al. Computed tomography perfusion as an early predictor of malignant cerebral infarction. Eur Stroke J. 2025;10: 172-180.
14. Alcock S, Singh S, Wiens EJ, et al. CT perfusion for Assessment of poor Neurological outcome in Comatose Cardiac Arrest Patients (CANCCAP): protocol for a prospective study. BMJ Open. 2023;13: 071166.
15. Qaiser A, Lozano D, Liquigli N, et al. CT Perfusion Imaging Guides Clinical Decision-Making in a Case of Thalamic Stroke: A Case Report. Cureus. 2023;15: 44846.
16. Bohatyrewicz R, Pastuszka J, Walas W, et al. Implementation of Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA) and Computed Tomography Perfusion (CTP) in Polish Guidelines for Determination of Cerebral Circulatory Arrest (CCA) during Brain Death/Death by Neurological Criteria (BD/DNC) Diagnosis Procedure. J Clin Med. 2021;10.
17. Pedicelli A, Bartocci M, Lozupone E, et al. The role of cervical color Doppler ultrasound in the diagnosis of brain death. Neuroradiology. 2019;61: 137-145.
18. Su Y, Yang Q, Liu G, et al. Diagnosis of brain death: confirmatory tests after clinical test. Chin Med J (Engl ). 2014;127: 1272-1277.
19. Su Y, Chen W, Zhang Y, et al. To Accelerate the Process of Brain Death Determination in China Through the Strategy and Practice of Establishing Demonstration Hospitals. Neurocrit Care. 2024.
20. Okmen K, Balk S, Ulker GK. Orbital doppler ultrasound as an ancillary test for diagnosing brain death: A prospective, single blind comparative study. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2024;241: 108289.
21. Deana C, Biasucci DG, Aspide R, et al. Transcranial Doppler and Color-Coded Doppler Use for Brain Death Determination in Adult Patients: A Pictorial Essay. J Ultrasound Med. 2024;43: 979-992.
22. Aziz Rizk A, Farhani N, Shankar J. Computed Tomography Perfusion for the Diagnosis of Brain Death: A Technical Review. Can J Neurol Sci. 2024;51: 173-178.
23. Aziz Rizk A, Farhani N, Shankar J. Computed Tomography Perfusion for the Diagnosis of Brain Death: A Technical Review. Can J Neurol Sci. 2023: 1-6.
24. Hansen KIT, Kelsen J, Othman MH, et al. Confirmatory digital subtraction angiography after clinical brain death/death by neurological criteria: impact on number of donors and organ transplants. Peer J. 2023;11: 15759.
25. Junga A, Kockwelp P, Valkov D, et al. Teach the Unteachable with a Virtual Reality (VR) Brain Death Scenario-800 Students and 3 Years of Experience. Perspectives on Medical Education. 2025.
26. Yamamoto T. Neurophysiology of Brain Death and Differential Diagnosis. Brain Nerve. 2025;77: 323-328.
27. Wongso H, Kurniawan A, Setiadi Y, et al. Translocator Protein 18 kDa (TSPO): A Promising Molecular Target for Image-Guided Surgery of Solid Cancers. Adv Pharm Bull. 2024;14: 86-104.
28. Lew CO, Calabrese E, Chen JV, et al. Artificial Intelligence Outcome Prediction in Neonates with Encephalopathy (AI-OPiNE). Radiol Artif Intell. 2024;6: 240076.
29. Zuckier LS, McKinnon NK. Ancillary radionuclide perfusion studies in the determination of death by neurologic criteria: methods, interpretation and lexicon-a user guide for the clinician. Can J Anaesth. 2023;70: 771-780.
30. Zuckier LS. Radionuclide Evaluation of Brain Death in the Post-McMath Era. J Nucl Med. 2016;57: 1560-1568.
31. Al-Shammri S, Al-Feeli M. Confirmation of brain death using brain radionuclide perfusion imaging technique. Med Princ Pract. 2004;13: 267-272.
32. Machado C. A contribution of multimodality evoked potentials and electroretinography for the early diagnosis of brain death. In: Machado C, ed. Brain Death (Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Brain Death). New York: Elsevier Science, BV. 1995: 141-150.
33. Machado C. An early approach to brain death diagnosis using multimodality evoked potentials and electroretinography. Minerva Anestesiol. 1994;60: 573-577.
34. Machado C. Multimodality evoked potentials and electroretinography in a test battery for an early diagnosis of brain death. J Neurosurg Sci. 1993;37: 125-131.
35. Kramer AH. Ancillary testing in brain death. Semin Neurol. 2015;35: 125-138.
36. Rizvi T, Batchala P, Mukherjee S. Brain Death: Diagnosis and Imaging Techniques. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2018;39: 515-529.
37. Young GB, Lee D. A critique of ancillary tests for brain death. Neurocrit Care. 2004;1:499-508.
38. Lewis A, Kirschen MP, Greer D. The 2023 AAN/AAP/CNS/SCCM Pediatric and Adult Brain Death/Death by Neurologic Criteria Consensus Practice Guideline: A Comparison With the 2010 and 2011 Guidelines. Neurol Clin Pract. 2023;13: 200189.
39. Wijdicks EF, Varelas PN, Gronseth GS, et al. American Academy of N. Evidence-based guideline update: determining brain death in adults: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology. 2010;74: 1911-1918.
40. Wijdicks EF. Brain death guidelines explained. Semin Neurol 2015;35:105-115.
41. Wijdicks EF. The case against confirmatory tests for determining brain death in adults. Neurology. 2010;75: 77-83.
42. Machado C, Estevez M, DeFina PA, et al. Response to Lewis A: Reconciling the Case of Jahi Mcmath. Neurocrit Care. 2018;29: 521-522.
43. Machado C. Jahi McMath: a new state of disorder of consciousness. J Neurosurg Sci. 2020;65:211-213.
44. Machado C. Brain Death: A reappraisal. New York: Spinger Science+Bussiness Media, LLC. 2007.
45. Machado C, Estevez-Baez M. Ancillary tests in brain death confirmation. When do you order ancillary tests to determine brain death? . Brain, Body and Cognition. 2020;9:155.