Demonstration and Performance Evaluation of Two Novel Algorithms for Removing Artifacts From Automated Intraoperative Temperature Data Sets: Multicenter, Observational, Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The automated acquisition of intraoperative patient temperature data via temperature probes leads to the possibility of producing a number of artifacts related to probe positioning that may impact these probes' utility for observational research. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the performance of two de novo algorithms for filtering such artifacts. METHODS: In this observational retrospective study, the intraoperative temperature data of adults who received general anesthesia for noncardiac surgery were extracted from the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group registry. Two algorithms were developed and then compared to the reference standard-anesthesiologists' manual artifact detection process. Algorithm 1 (a slope-based algorithm) was based on the linear curve fit of 3 adjacent temperature data points. Algorithm 2 (an interval-based algorithm) assessed for time gaps between contiguous temperature recordings. Sensitivity and specificity values for artifact detection were calculated for each algorithm, as were mean temperatures and areas under the curve for hypothermia (temperatures below 36 C) for each patient, after artifact removal via each methodology. RESULTS: A total of 27,683 temperature readings from 200 anesthetic records were analyzed. The overall agreement among the anesthesiologists was 92.1%. Both algorithms had high specificity but moderate sensitivity (specificity: 99.02% for algorithm 1 vs 99.54% for algorithm 2; sensitivity: 49.13% for algorithm 1 vs 37.72% for algorithm 2; F-score: 0.65 for algorithm 1 vs 0.55 for algorithm 2). The areas under the curve for time × hypothermic temperature and the mean temperatures recorded for each case after artifact removal were similar between the algorithms and the anesthesiologists. CONCLUSIONS: The tested algorithms provide an automated way to filter intraoperative temperature artifacts that closely approximates manual sorting by anesthesiologists. Our study provides evidence demonstrating the efficacy of highly generalizable artifact reduction algorithms that can be readily used by observational studies that rely on automated intraoperative data acquisition.
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 | 0.033 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; 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".