MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097070075 · doi:10.1109/titb.2010.2040394

A Cusum-Based Multilevel Alerting Method for Physiological Monitoring

2010· article· en· W2097070075 on OpenAlexaff
Ping Yang, Guy A. Dumont, J. Mark Ansermino

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCUSUMComputer scienceStatisticsHeuristicsVital signsData miningMedicineMathematicsAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alerting systems used by current physiological monitors are designed to detect changes in the levels of vital signs, but they tend to be very sensitive to artifacts. This paper proposes a method to detect changes in the direction of trend and generate multilevel alerts according to the statistical significance of the detection. One-point-ahead signal predictions are calculated by averaging the historical data with the weights decreasing in the past. The two-sided cumulative sums (Cusum) of the prediction errors are tested against multiple thresholds to detect change points with two levels of certainty. The temporal shapes of the detected changes are analyzed using heuristics to determine whether to trigger an alert. The method was tested offline using 20 cases collected during surgery at a local hospital. The detection results were evaluated by two experienced anesthesiologists. The direction of trend was correctly detected in 90.2% of the annotated changes for end-tidal carbon dioxide, 89.4% for expiratory minute volume, 91.8% for peak airway pressure, and 95.4% for noninvasive blood pressure. The certainty levels of the true-positive alerts estimated by the algorithm have a high ratio of agreement with the anesthesiologists' evaluations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Information Technology in BiomedicineSame topicHealthcare Technology and Patient MonitoringFrench-language works237,207