Closed-Loop MISO Identification of Propofol Effect on Blood Pressure and Depth of Hypnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feasibility of closed-loop propofol anesthesia has been demonstrated in clinical trials; however, no closed-loop system is currently routinely used in clinical practice. Data from closed-loop clinical trials provide valuable information for system evaluation prior to market approval, including outlier behavior. To exploit this valuable data, closed-loop identification in the presence of nonzero disturbances is required. Disturbances due to stimulation are not zero mean and will cause bias in models identified from clinical data. In this paper, we use multiple-input single-output (MISO) closed-loop identification to take the response to disturbances during induction of anesthesia into account. It is shown that direct MISO output-error identification introduces limited bias for this specific closed-loop identification problem and the use of more complex closed-loop identification methods does not improve model accuracy. Using this approach, we identify and validate a set of models that describes both the blood pressure and the depth-of-hypnosis response to propofol infusion for patients at risk of cardiovascular suppression. Quantification of both these responses for the same patients provides a valuable basis for the design and evaluation of constrained control systems.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".