Predicting Blood Pressure After Nitroglycerin Infusion Dose Titration in Critical Care Units
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critical care nurses use physiological indicators, such as blood pressure, to guide their decision-making regarding the titration of nitroglycerin infusions. A retrospective study was conducted to determine the accuracy of systolic blood pressure predictions during nitroglycerin infusions. Data were extracted from the publicly accessible eICU program database. The accuracy of a linear model, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator, ridge regression, and a stacked ensemble model trained using the AutoGluon-Tabular framework were investigated. A persistence model, where the future value in a time series is predicted as equal to its preceding value, was used as the baseline comparison for model accuracy. Internal-external validation was used to examine if heterogeneity among hospitals could contribute to model performance. The sample consisted of 827 patients and 2541 nitroglycerin dose titrations with corresponding systolic blood pressure measurements. The root-mean-square error on the test set for the stacked ensemble model developed using the AutoGluon-Tabular framework was the lowest of all models at 15.3 mm Hg, equating to a 22% improvement against the baseline. Internal-external validation revealed consistent accuracy across hospitals. Further studies are needed to determine the impact of using systolic blood pressure predictions to inform nurses' clinical decision-making regarding nitroglycerin infusion titration in critical 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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".