MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3195717528 · doi:10.2196/24762

Development and Validation of an Arterial Pressure-Based Cardiac Output Algorithm Using a Convolutional Neural Network: Retrospective Study Based on Prospective Registry Data

2021· article· en· W3195717528 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hyun-Lim Yang, Chul-Woo Jung, Seong Mi Yang, Min‐Soo Kim, Sungho Shim, Kook Hyun Lee, Hyung‐Chul Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiac outputConvolutional neural networkMedicinePulmonary artery catheterAlgorithmDeep learningComputer scienceStroke volumeArtificial neural networkProspective cohort studyArtificial intelligenceBlood pressureMachine learningInternal medicineHeart rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Arterial pressure-based cardiac output (APCO) is a less invasive method for estimating cardiac output without concerns about complications from the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC). However, inaccuracies of currently available APCO devices have been reported. Improvements to the algorithm by researchers are impossible, as only a subset of the algorithm has been released. OBJECTIVE: In this study, an open-source algorithm was developed and validated using a convolutional neural network and a transfer learning technique. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed using data from a prospective cohort registry of intraoperative bio-signal data from a university hospital. The convolutional neural network model was trained using the arterial pressure waveform as input and the stroke volume (SV) value as the output. The model parameters were pretrained using the SV values from a commercial APCO device (Vigileo or EV1000 with the FloTrac algorithm) and adjusted with a transfer learning technique using SV values from the PAC. The performance of the model was evaluated using absolute error for the PAC on the testing dataset from separate periods. Finally, we compared the performance of the deep learning model and the FloTrac with the SV values from the PAC. RESULTS: A total of 2057 surgical cases (1958 training and 99 testing cases) were used in the registry. In the deep learning model, the absolute errors of SV were 14.5 (SD 13.4) mL (10.2 [SD 8.4] mL in cardiac surgery and 17.4 [SD 15.3] mL in liver transplantation). Compared with FloTrac, the absolute errors of the deep learning model were significantly smaller (16.5 [SD 15.4] and 18.3 [SD 15.1], P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The deep learning-based APCO algorithm showed better performance than the commercial APCO device. Further improvement of the algorithm developed in this study may be helpful for estimating cardiac output accurately in clinical practice and optimizing high-risk patient care.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations22
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyFrench-language works237,207