Temporal Variability in the Sampling of Vital Sign Data Limits the Accuracy of Patient State Estimation*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Physiologic signals are typically measured continuously in the critical care unit, but only recorded at intermittent time intervals in the patient health record. Low frequency data collection may not accurately reflect the variability and complexity of these signals or the patient's clinical state. We aimed to characterize how increasing the temporal window size of observation from seconds to hours modifies the measured variability and complexity of basic vital signs. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of signal data acquired between April 1, 2013, and September 30, 2015. SETTING: Critical care unit at The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto. PATIENTS: Seven hundred forty-seven patients less than or equal to 18 years old (63,814,869 data values), within seven diagnostic/surgical groups. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Measures of variability (SD and the absolute differences) and signal complexity (multiscale sample entropy and detrended fluctuation analysis [expressed as the scaling component α]) were calculated for systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation. The variability of all vital signs increases as the window size increases from seconds to hours at the patient and diagnostic/surgical group level. Significant differences in the magnitude of variability for all time scales within and between groups was demonstrated (p < 0.0001). Variability correlated negatively with patient age for heart rate and oxygen saturation, but positively with systolic blood pressure. Changes in variability and complexity of heart rate and systolic blood pressure from time of admission to discharge were found. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill children, the temporal variability of physiologic signals supports higher frequency data capture, and this variability should be accounted for in models of patient state estimation.
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 | 0.008 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".