MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382317641 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v37i13.26862

Towards Safe Mechanical Ventilation Treatment Using Deep Offline Reinforcement Learning

2023· article· en· W4382317641 on OpenAlexafffund
Flemming Kondrup, Thomas Jiralerspong, Elaine Lau, Nathan de Lara, Jacob Shkrob, My Duc Tran, Doina Precup, Sumana Basu

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersUniversity of TorontoMcGill University
KeywordsReinforcement learningTask (project management)Computer scienceVentilation (architecture)Key (lock)Artificial intelligenceMechanical ventilationReinforcementMachine learningMedicineEngineeringComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mechanical ventilation is a key form of life support for patients with pulmonary impairment. Healthcare workers are required to continuously adjust ventilator settings for each patient, a challenging and time consuming task. Hence, it would be beneficial to develop an automated decision support tool to optimize ventilation treatment. We present DeepVent, a Conservative Q-Learning (CQL) based offline Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) agent that learns to predict the optimal ventilator parameters for a patient to promote 90 day survival. We design a clinically relevant intermediate reward that encourages continuous improvement of the patient vitals as well as addresses the challenge of sparse reward in RL. We find that DeepVent recommends ventilation parameters within safe ranges, as outlined in recent clinical trials. The CQL algorithm offers additional safety by mitigating the overestimation of the value estimates of out-of-distribution states/actions. We evaluate our agent using Fitted Q Evaluation (FQE) and demonstrate that it outperforms physicians from the MIMIC-III dataset.

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)0.000
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 score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.608

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations17
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207