Automating sedation state assessments using natural language processing
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Common goals for procedural sedation are to control pain and ensure the patient is not moving to an extent that is impeding safe progress or completion of the procedure. Clinicians perform regular assessments of the adequacy of procedural sedation in accordance with these goals to inform their decision-making around sedation titration and also for documentation of the care provided. Natural language processing could be applied to real-time transcriptions of audio recordings made during procedures in order to classify sedation states that involve movement and pain, which could then be integrated into clinical documentation systems. The aim of this study was to determine whether natural language processing algorithms will work with sufficient accuracy to detect sedation states during procedural sedation. DESIGN: A prospective observational study was conducted. METHODS: Audio recordings from consenting participants undergoing elective procedures performed in the interventional radiology suite at a large academic hospital were transcribed using an automated speech recognition model. Sentences of transcribed text were used to train and evaluate several different NLP pipelines for a text classification task. The NLP pipelines we evaluated included a simple Bag-of-Words (BOW) model, an ensemble architecture combining a linear BOW model and a "token-to-vector" (Tok2Vec) component, and a transformer-based architecture using the RoBERTa pre-trained model. RESULTS: A total of 15,936 sentences from transcriptions of 82 procedures was included in the analysis. The RoBERTa model achieved the highest performance among the three models with an area under the ROC curve (AUC-ROC) of 0.97, an F1 score of 0.87, a precision of 0.86, and a recall of 0.89. The Ensemble model showed a similarly high AUC-ROC of 0.96, but lower F1 score of 0.79, precision of 0.83, and recall of 0.77. The BOW approach achieved an AUC-ROC of 0.97 and the F1 score was 0.7, precision was 0.83 and recall was 0.66. CONCLUSION: The transformer-based architecture using the RoBERTa pre-trained model achieved the best classification performance. Further research is required to confirm the that this natural language processing pipeline can accurately perform text classifications with real-time audio data to allow for automated sedation state assessments. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Automating sedation state assessments using natural language processing pipelines would allow for more timely documentation of the care received by sedated patients, and, at the same time, decrease documentation burden for clinicians. Downstream applications can also be generated from the classifications, including for example real-time visualizations of sedation state, which may facilitate improved communication of the adequacy of the sedation between clinicians, who may be performing supervision remotely. Also, accumulation of sedation state assessments from multiple procedures may reveal insights into the efficacy of particular sedative medications or identify procedures where the current approach for sedation and analgesia is not optimal (i.e. a significant amount of time spent in "pain" or "movement" sedation states).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».