Machine Vision and Image Analysis in Anesthesia: Narrative Review and Future Prospects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine vision describes the use of artificial intelligence to interpret, analyze, and derive predictions from image or video data. Machine vision-based techniques are already in clinical use in radiology, ophthalmology, and dermatology, where some applications currently equal or exceed the performance of specialty physicians in areas of image interpretation. While machine vision in anesthesia has many potential applications, its development remains in its infancy in our specialty. Early research for machine vision in anesthesia has focused on automated recognition of anatomical structures during ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia or line insertion; recognition of the glottic opening and vocal cords during video laryngoscopy; prediction of the difficult airway using facial images; and clinical alerts for endobronchial intubation detected on chest radiograph. Current machine vision applications measuring the distance between endotracheal tube tip and carina have demonstrated noninferior performance compared to board-certified physicians. The performance and potential uses of machine vision for anesthesia will only grow with the advancement of underlying machine vision algorithm technical performance developed outside of medicine, such as convolutional neural networks and transfer learning. This article summarizes recently published works of interest, provides a brief overview of techniques used to create machine vision applications, explains frequently used terms, and discusses challenges the specialty will encounter as we embrace the advantages that this technology may bring to future clinical practice and patient care. As machine vision emerges onto the clinical stage, it is critically important that anesthesiologists are prepared to confidently assess which of these devices are safe, appropriate, and bring added value to patient care.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".