Patient Safety of Perioperative Medication Through the Lens of Digital Health and Artificial Intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perioperative medication has made significant contributions to enhancing patient safety. Nevertheless, administering medication during this period still poses considerable safety concerns, with many errors being detected only after causing significant physiological disturbances. The intricacy of medication administration in the perioperative setting poses specific challenges to patient safety. To address these challenges, implementing potential strategies and interventions is critical. One such strategy is raising awareness and revising educational curricula regarding drug safety in the operating room. Another crucial strategy is recognizing the importance of redundancy and multiple checks in the operating room as a hallmark of medication safety, which is not a common practice. Digital health technologies and artificial intelligence (AI) also offer the potential to improve perioperative medication safety. Computerized physician order entry systems, electronic medication administration records, and barcode medication administration systems have been proven to reduce medication errors and improve patient safety. By implementing these strategies and interventions, health care professionals can enhance the safety of perioperative medication administration and improve patient outcomes.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".