MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362597259 · doi:10.1038/s41746-023-00803-0

Predicting patient decompensation from continuous physiologic monitoring in the emergency department

2023· article· en· W4362597259 on OpenAlexaff
Sameer Sundrani, Julie Y. Chen, Boyang Tom Jin, Zahra Shakeri Hossein Abad, Pranav Rajpurkar, David Kim

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Digital Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVital signsMedicineTriageDecompensationEmergency departmentVentricular tachycardiaTachycardiaEmergency medicineCardiologyAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anticipation of clinical decompensation is essential for effective emergency and critical care. In this study, we develop a multimodal machine learning approach to predict the onset of new vital sign abnormalities (tachycardia, hypotension, hypoxia) in ED patients with normal initial vital signs. Our method combines standard triage data (vital signs, demographics, chief complaint) with features derived from a brief period of continuous physiologic monitoring, extracted via both conventional signal processing and transformer-based deep learning on ECG and PPG waveforms. We study 19,847 adult ED visits, divided into training (75%), validation (12.5%), and a chronologically sequential held-out test set (12.5%). The best-performing models use a combination of engineered and transformer-derived features, predicting in a 90-minute window new tachycardia with AUROC of 0.836 (95% CI, 0.800-0.870), new hypotension with AUROC 0.802 (95% CI, 0.747-0.856), and new hypoxia with AUROC 0.713 (95% CI, 0.680-0.745), in all cases significantly outperforming models using only standard triage data. Salient features include vital sign trends, PPG perfusion index, and ECG waveforms. This approach could improve the triage of apparently stable patients and be applied continuously for the prediction of near-term clinical deterioration.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.271 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations52
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuenpj Digital MedicineSame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207