Autonomous Systems in Anesthesia: Where Do We Stand in 2020? A Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As most of us are aware, almost every facet of our society is becoming, for better or worse, progressively more technology-dependent. Technological advancement has made autonomous systems, also known as robots, an integral part of our life in several fields, including medicine. The application of robots in anesthesia could be classified into 3 types of robots. The first ones are pharmacological robots. These robots are based on closed-loop systems that allow better-individualized anesthetic drug titration for optimal homeostasis during general anesthesia and sedation. Recent evidence also demonstrates that autonomous systems could control hemodynamic parameters proficiently outperforming manual control in the operating room. The second type of robot is mechanical. They enable automated motorized reproduction of tasks requiring high manual dexterity level. Such robots have been advocated to be more accurate than humans and, thus, could be safer for the patient. The third type is a cognitive robot also known as decision support system. This type of robot is able to recognize crucial clinical situation that requires human intervention. When these events occur, the system notifies the attending clinician, describes relevant related clinical observations, proposes pertinent therapeutic options and, when allowed by the attending clinician, may even administer treatment. It seems that cognitive robots could increase patients' safety. Robots in anesthesia offer not only the possibility to free the attending clinicians from repetitive tasks but can also reduce mental workload allowing them to focus on tasks that require human intelligence such as analytical and clinical approach, lifesaving decision-making capacity, and interpersonal interaction. Nevertheless, further studies have yet to be done to test the combination of these 3 types of robots to maintain simultaneously the homeostasis of multiple biological variables and to test the safety of such combination on a large-scale population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".