MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312210596 · doi:10.1097/cce.0000000000000814

Optimized Arterial Line Artifact Identification Algorithm Cleans High-Frequency Arterial Line Data With High Accuracy in Critically Ill Patients

2022· article· en· W4312210596 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jasmine M. Khan, David M. Maslove, J. Gordon Boyd

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Explorations · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArterial lineMedicineArtifact (error)Blood pressurePopulationMean arterial pressureCritically illComputer scienceAlgorithmCardiologyArtificial intelligenceIntensive care medicineInternal medicineHeart rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-frequency data streams of vital signs may be used to generate individualized hemodynamic targets for critically ill patients. Central to this precision medicine approach to resuscitation is our ability to screen these data streams for errors and artifacts. However, there is no consensus on the best method for data cleaning. Our goal was to determine whether an error-checking algorithm developed for intraoperative use could be applied to high volumes of arterial line data in an ICU population. DESIGN: Multicenter observational study. SETTING: ICUs across Ontario, Canada. PATIENTS: Nested cohort of ICU patients with shock and/or respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS: High-frequency blood pressure data was analyzed. Systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial pressure minute averages were calculated. For manual analysis, a trained researcher retrospectively reviewed mean arterial pressure data, removing values that were deemed nonphysiological. The algorithm was implemented and identified artifactual data. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Arterial line data was extracted from 15 patients. A trained researcher manually reviewed 40,798 minute-by-minute data points, then subsequently analyzed them with the algorithm. Manual review resulted in the identification of 119 artifacts (0.29%). The optimized algorithm identified 116 (97%) of these artifacts. Five hundred thirty-seven data points were erroneously removed or modified. Compared with manual review, the modified algorithm incorporating absolute thresholds of greater than 30 and less than 200 mm Hg had 97.5% sensitivity, 98.7% specificity, and a Matthew correlation coefficient of 0.41. CONCLUSIONS: The error-checking algorithm had high sensitivity and specificity in detecting arterial line blood pressure artifacts compared with manual data cleaning. Given the growing use of large datasets and machine learning in critical care research, methods to validate the quality of high-frequency data is important to optimize algorithm performance and prevent spurious associations based on artifactual data.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.471
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care ExplorationsSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207