Detection of Postoperative Vital Signs Abnormalities on a Surgical Ward using Conventional and Remote Automated Monitoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The true incidence of abnormal vital signs on post-surgical wards may be seriously underestimated based on nurse obtained conventional measurement. We sought to determine the incidence and severity of postoperative tachycardia, bradycardia and hypoxemia detected by continuous remote automated monitoring (RAM) versus the incidence of these vital sign abnormalities detected during routine nursing care. Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort proof-of-concept study of 121 patients aged ≥45 years recovering from orthopedic surgery. Eligible patients were at risk of postoperative myocardial injury and had a planned hospital stay ≥48 hours. Philips’ IntelliVue MX40 wearable RAM technology was used to continuously monitor patients’ heart rate and pulse oximetry up to 72 hours following surgery. In addition, study personnel obtained vital signs collected during routine nursing care from participants’ medical charts. Clinically meaningful tachycardia, bradycardia and hypoxemia were defined as heart rates >100, <55, and blood oxyhemoglobin saturation (SpO2) of <90% for >15 contiguous minutes, respectively. Results: Continuous RAM identified clinically meaningful episodes of tachycardia in 42 of 121 patients [34.7%] versus 7 patients [5.8%] identified by routine nursing care, for an absolute difference 28.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 20.8, 37.0; p=0.001). RAM also detected bradycardia in 14 of 121 patients [11.6%] versus 6 patients [5.0%] detected by routine care, for an absolute difference 6.6% (95% CI 2.2, 11.0; p=0.07). RAM detected hypoxemia in 25 of 107 patients [23.3%] compared with 1 patient [0.9%] detected through routine monitoring, for an absolute difference of 22.4% (95% CI 14.5, 30.3; p=0.001). Conclusion: Most clinically meaningful episodes of vital signs abnormalities detected by continuous RAM were missed by nurses through conventional periodic monitoring. Continuous RAM technologies have the potential to improve patient outcomes through early identification of physiological abnormalities on surgical wards.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".