Continuous multiorgan variability analysis to track severity of organ failure in critically ill patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the utility of using continuous heart rate variability (HRV) and respiratory rate variability (RRV) monitoring for (a) tracking daily organ dysfunction in critically ill patients and (b) identifying patterns of variability changes during onset of shock and resolution of respiratory failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-three critically ill patients experiencing respiratory and/or cardiac failure underwent continuous recording of their electrocardiogram and capnogram (CO2) waveforms from admission or intubation until discharge (maximum 14 days). HRV and RRV were computed in 5-minute overlapping windows, using Continuous Individualized Multi-organ Variability Analysis software. Multiple organ dysfunction scores were recorded daily. HRV and RRV trajectories were characterized during onset of shock and resolution of respiratory failure. RESULTS: Both HRV and RRV decreased with increasing severity of multiple organ dysfunction scores for a variety of variability metrics. A decline in several measures of HRV and no decline in RRV were observed before onset of shock (n=6). In contrast, during resolution of respiratory failure, an increase in RRV was observed in patients who successfully passed extubation (n=12), with no change in RRV in those who subsequently failed extubation (n=2). CONCLUSIONS: There is an association between reduced HRV and RRV and increasing organ dysfunction in critically ill patients. The significance of observing trends of decreasing HRV (with onset of shock) and increasing RRV (with resolution of respiratory failure) merits further investigation.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".