Errors, Omissions, and Outliers in Hourly Vital Signs Measurements in Intensive Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To empirically examine the prevalence of errors, omissions, and outliers in hourly vital signs recorded in the ICU. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of vital signs measurements from a large-scale clinical data warehouse (Multiparameter Intelligent Monitoring in Intensive Care III). SETTING: Data were collected from the medical, surgical, cardiac, and cardiac surgery ICUs of a tertiary medical center in the United States. PATIENTS: We analyzed data from approximately 48,000 ICU stays including approximately 28 million vital signs measurements. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We used the vital sign day as our unit of measurement, defined as all the recordings from a single patient for a specific vital sign over a single 24-hour period. Approximately 30-40% of vital sign days included at least one gap of greater than 70 minutes between measurements. Between 3% and 10% of blood pressure measurements included logical inconsistencies. With the exception of pulse oximetry vital sign days, the readings in most vital sign days were normally distributed. We found that 15-38% of vital sign days contained at least one statistical outlier, of which 6-19% occurred simultaneously with outliers in other vital signs. CONCLUSIONS: We found a significant number of missing, erroneous, and outlying vital signs measurements in a large ICU database. Our results provide empirical evidence of the nonrepresentativeness of hourly vital signs. Additional studies should focus on determining optimal sampling frequencies for recording vital signs in the ICU.
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 | 0.040 | 0.273 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".