Automating sedation state assessments using natural language processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Common goals for procedural sedation are to control pain and ensure the patient is not moving to an extent that is impeding safe progress or completion of the procedure. Clinicians perform regular assessments of the adequacy of procedural sedation in accordance with these goals to inform their decision-making around sedation titration and also for documentation of the care provided. Natural language processing could be applied to real-time transcriptions of audio recordings made during procedures in order to classify sedation states that involve movement and pain, which could then be integrated into clinical documentation systems. The aim of this study was to determine whether natural language processing algorithms will work with sufficient accuracy to detect sedation states during procedural sedation. DESIGN: A prospective observational study was conducted. METHODS: Audio recordings from consenting participants undergoing elective procedures performed in the interventional radiology suite at a large academic hospital were transcribed using an automated speech recognition model. Sentences of transcribed text were used to train and evaluate several different NLP pipelines for a text classification task. The NLP pipelines we evaluated included a simple Bag-of-Words (BOW) model, an ensemble architecture combining a linear BOW model and a "token-to-vector" (Tok2Vec) component, and a transformer-based architecture using the RoBERTa pre-trained model. RESULTS: A total of 15,936 sentences from transcriptions of 82 procedures was included in the analysis. The RoBERTa model achieved the highest performance among the three models with an area under the ROC curve (AUC-ROC) of 0.97, an F1 score of 0.87, a precision of 0.86, and a recall of 0.89. The Ensemble model showed a similarly high AUC-ROC of 0.96, but lower F1 score of 0.79, precision of 0.83, and recall of 0.77. The BOW approach achieved an AUC-ROC of 0.97 and the F1 score was 0.7, precision was 0.83 and recall was 0.66. CONCLUSION: The transformer-based architecture using the RoBERTa pre-trained model achieved the best classification performance. Further research is required to confirm the that this natural language processing pipeline can accurately perform text classifications with real-time audio data to allow for automated sedation state assessments. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Automating sedation state assessments using natural language processing pipelines would allow for more timely documentation of the care received by sedated patients, and, at the same time, decrease documentation burden for clinicians. Downstream applications can also be generated from the classifications, including for example real-time visualizations of sedation state, which may facilitate improved communication of the adequacy of the sedation between clinicians, who may be performing supervision remotely. Also, accumulation of sedation state assessments from multiple procedures may reveal insights into the efficacy of particular sedative medications or identify procedures where the current approach for sedation and analgesia is not optimal (i.e. a significant amount of time spent in "pain" or "movement" sedation states).
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".