MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229333777 · doi:10.2196/36998

Improving Pain Assessment Using Vital Signs and Pain Medication for Patients With Sickle Cell Disease: Retrospective Study

2022· article· en· W4229333777 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Swati Padhee, Gary K. Nave, Tanvi Banerjee, Daniel M. Abrams, Nirmish Shah

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Complementary and Integrative HealthNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineVital signsMedical recordEmergency departmentDiseasePhysical therapyPain assessmentPsychiatryInternal medicinePain managementAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is the most common inherited blood disorder affecting millions of people worldwide. Most patients with SCD experience repeated, unpredictable episodes of severe pain. These pain episodes are the leading cause of emergency department visits among patients with SCD and may last for several weeks. Arguably, the most challenging aspect of treating pain episodes in SCD is assessing and interpreting a patient's pain intensity level. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to learn deep feature representations of subjective pain trajectories using objective physiological signals collected from electronic health records. METHODS: This study used electronic health record data collected from 496 Duke University Medical Center participants over 5 consecutive years. Each record contained measures for 6 vital signs and the patient's self-reported pain score, with an ordinal range from 0 (no pain) to 10 (severe and unbearable pain). We also extracted 3 features related to medication: medication type, medication status (given or applied, or missed or removed or due), and total medication dosage (mg/mL). We used variational autoencoders for representation learning and designed machine learning classification algorithms to build pain prediction models. We evaluated our results using an accuracy and confusion matrix and visualized the qualitative data representations. RESULTS: We designed a classification model using raw data and deep representational learning to predict subjective pain scores with average accuracies of 82.8%, 70.6%, 49.3%, and 47.4% for 2-point, 4-point, 6-point, and 11-point pain ratings, respectively. We observed that random forest classification models trained on deep represented features outperformed models trained on unrepresented data for all pain rating scales. We observed that at varying Likert scales, our models performed better when provided with medication data along with vital signs data. We visualized the data representations to understand the underlying latent representations, indicating neighboring representations for similar pain scores with a higher resolution of pain ratings. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that medication information (the type of medication, total medication dosage, and whether the medication was given or missed) can significantly improve subjective pain prediction modeling compared with modeling with only vital signs. This study shows promise in data-driven estimated pain scores that will help clinicians with additional information about the patient's condition, in addition to the patient's self-reported pain scores.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.604
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.360 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207