MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312930896 · doi:10.22374/cjgim.v17isp1.591

Detection of Postoperative Vital Signs Abnormalities on a Surgical Ward using Conventional and Remote Automated Monitoring

2022· article· en· W4312930896 on OpenAlex
Michael McGillion, Maura Marcucci, Flávia K. Borges, David Conen, Brenda L. Coleman, Krysten Gregus, Saman Parvaneh, Amal Bessisow, Ameen Patel, Prathiba Harsha, Carley Ouellette, Sandra Ofori, Daniel I. Sessler, P.J. Devereaux

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of General Internal Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesMcGill University Health CentreMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVital signsHypoxemiaBradycardiaPulse oximetryTachycardiaIncidence (geometry)Sinus tachycardiaHeart rateConfidence intervalProspective cohort studyAnesthesiaVentricular tachycardiaInternal medicineCardiologyBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 (SpO 2 ) 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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.836

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.236 · 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