Wavelet transform cardiorespiratory coherence detects patient movement during general anesthesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heart rate variability (HRV) may provide anesthesiologists with a noninvasive tool for monitoring nociception during general anesthesia. A novel wavelet transform cardiorespiratory coherence (WTCRC) algorithm has been developed to calculate estimates of the linear coupling between heart rate and respiration. WTCRC values range from 1 (high coherence, no nociception) to 0 (low coherence, strong nociception). We have assessed the algorithm's ability to detect movement events (indicative of patient response to nociception) in 39 pediatric patients receiving general anesthesia. Sixty movement events were recorded during the 39 surgical procedures. Minimum and average WTCRC were calculated in a 30 second window surrounding each movement event. We used a 95% significance level as the threshold for detecting nociception during patient movement. The 95% significance level was calculated relative to a red noise background, using Monte Carlo simulations. It was calculated to be 0.7. Values below this threshold were treated as successful detection. The algorithm was found to detect movement with sensitivity ranging from 95% (minimum WTCRC) to 65% (average WTCRC). The WTCRC algorithm thus shows promise for noninvasively monitoring nociception during general anesthesia, using only heart rate and respiration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".