LSTM-based Pulmonary Air Leak Forecasting for Chest Tube Management
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prolonged air leak is a complication arising from a collapsed lung which can lead to serious illness such as pneumonia and empyema, and patient suffering from indwelling chest tubes. Drainage of air and liquid from chest drains can be monitored and recorded using novel digital chest drainage devices. The collected data can be analyzed by predictive models, which can provide decision support in chest tube management. Despite the promising adoption of predictive models in this context, existing approaches are still in their infancy and are mostly based on autoregressive and conventional machine learning models. In this paper, we present a LSTM-based model architecture for air leak forecasting that is able to deal with non-linear dependencies among different features and contiguous time points. We devise a post-processing procedure that leverages predictions to suggest whether the patient could have their chest tube safely removed in the upcoming hours, and evaluate the results according to a medical protocol. Experimental results show that our model is able to outperform currently adopted models, in terms of both forecasting and classification performance, suggesting the feasibility of our approach for chest tube management.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it