MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150974145 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2007.4353775

Multivariate Analysis in Clinical Monitoring: Detection of Intraoperative Hemorrhage and Light Anesthesia

2007· article· en· W2150974145 on OpenAlexaff
Ping Yang, Guy A. Dumont, Simon Ford, J. Mark Ansermino

Bibliographic record

VenueConference proceedings · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrincipal component analysisMultivariate statisticsVariance (accounting)Curse of dimensionalityMultivariate analysisCorrelationComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)StatisticsMedicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The number of vital sign variables measured during a typical surgery is beyond the simultaneous surveillance capabilities of most experienced clinicians. Most intraoperative events cause trend changes in multiple variables, and many clinical events can only be detected by investigating the inter-relationship between the direction and amplitude of these trend changes in the whole measurement array. We have compared the techniques of principal component analysis (PCA) and factor analysis (FA) in extracting latent variables to represent the underlying physiological mechanism. The detection performance of each method was tested on three simulated cases of intraoperative hemorrhage and a case of variation in depth of anesthesia. The results show that although the detection schemes based on PCA and FA both reduce dimensionality and detect changes in the variance, the FA-based method performs better in detecting subtle changes in the correlation structure.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConference proceedingsSame topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207