Incidence of Intraoperative Hypotension as a Function of the Chosen Definition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intraoperative hypotension (IOH) is a common side effect of general anesthesia and has been reported to be associated with adverse perioperative outcomes. These associations were found using different definitions for IOH. It is unknown whether the incidences of IOH found with those different definitions are comparable. The authors aimed to describe the relation between the chosen definition and incidence of IOH. METHODS: First, a systematic literature search was performed to identify recent definitions of IOH that have been used in the anesthesia literature. Subsequently, these definitions were applied to a cohort of 15,509 consecutive adult patients undergoing noncardiac surgery during general anesthesia. The incidence of IOH according to the different threshold values was calculated, and the effect of a defined minimal duration of a hypotensive episode was studied. RESULTS: Many different definitions of IOH were found. When applied to a cohort of patients, these different definitions resulted in different IOH incidences. Any episode of systolic blood pressure below 80 mmHg was found in 41% of the patients, whereas 93% of the patients had at least one episode of systolic blood pressure more than 20% below baseline. Both definitions are frequently used in the literature. The relation between threshold values from the literature and IOH incidence shows an S-shaped cumulative incidence curve, with occurrence frequencies of IOH varying from 5% to 99%. CONCLUSIONS: There is no widely accepted definition of IOH. With varying definitions, many different incidences can be reproduced. This might have implications for previously described associations between IOH and adverse outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".