MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979743968 · doi:10.1109/embc.2019.8856985

Prediction of Patient-specific Acute Hypotensive Episodes in ICU Using Deep Models

2019· article· en· W2979743968 on OpenAlexaff
Brandon Chan, Alireza Sedghi, Philip Laird, David M. Maslove, Parvin Mousavi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLogistic regressionTask (project management)Baseline (sea)Computer scienceCohortDeep learningArtificial intelligenceMedicineRegressionMachine learningEmergency medicineInternal medicineStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forecasting acute hypotensive episodes (AHE) in intensive care patients has been of recent interest to researchers in the healthcare domain. Advance warning of an impending AHE may give care providers additional information to help mitigate the negative clinical impact of a serious event such as an AHE or prompt a search for an evolving disease process. However, the currently accepted definition of AHE is restrictive does not account for inter-patient variability. In this paper, we propose a novel definition of an AHE based on patient-specific features of blood pressure recordings. Next, we utilize a deep learning-based method to predict the onset of an AHE from multiple physiological readings for different definitions of the prediction task including variable input and gap lengths. Using a cohort of 538 patients, our model was able to successfully predict the onset of an AHE with an accuracy and AUC score of 0.80 and 0.87 respectively. Compared to a baseline logistic regression model, our model outperforms the baseline in most of the definitions of the prediction task.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207