Machine learning predicts blood lactate levels in children after cardiac surgery in paediatric ICU
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although serum lactate levels are widely accepted markers of haemodynamic instability, an alternative method to evaluate haemodynamic stability/instability continuously and non-invasively may assist in improving the standard of patient care. We hypothesise that blood lactate in paediatric ICU patients can be predicted using machine learning applied to arterial waveforms and perioperative characteristics. METHODS: Forty-eight post-operative children, median age 4 months (2.9-11.8 interquartile range), mean baseline heart rate of 131 beats per minute (range 33-197), mean lactate level at admission of 22.3 mg/dL (range 6.3-71.1), were included. Morphological arterial waveform characteristics were acquired and analysed. Predicting lactate levels was accomplished using regression-based supervised learning algorithms, evaluated with hold-out cross-validation, including, basing prediction on the currently acquired physiological measurements along with those acquired at admission, as well as adding the most recent lactate measurement and the time since that measurement as prediction parameters. Algorithms were assessed with mean absolute error, the average of the absolute differences between actual and predicted lactate concentrations. Low values represent superior model performance. RESULTS: The best performing algorithm was the tuned random forest, which yielded a mean absolute error of 3.38 mg/dL when predicting blood lactate with updated ground truth from the most recent blood draw. CONCLUSIONS: The random forest is capable of predicting serum lactate levels by analysing perioperative variables, including the arterial pressure waveform. Thus, machine learning can predict patient blood lactate levels, a proxy for haemodynamic instability, non-invasively, continuously and with accuracy that may demonstrate clinical utility.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".