MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4399599397 · doi:10.2196/preprints.60885

Identifying Episodes of Hypovigilance in Intensive Care Units Using Routine Physiological Parameters and Artificial Intelligence: a Derivation Study (Preprint)

2024· preprint· en· W4399599397 on OpenAlexaffabout
Raphaëlle Giguère, Victor Niaussat, Monia Noël-Hunter, William Witteman, Tanya S. Paul, Alexandre Marois, Philippe Després, Simon Duchesne, Patrick Archambault

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecCentre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de Chaudière-AppalachesCentre Intégré de Santé et Services Sociaux de Chaudière-AppalacheThales (Canada)Université Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeliriumVital signsMedicineObservational studyIntensive careSedationIntensive care medicineEmergency medicineMachine learningArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND Delirium is a prevalent condition in intensive care units (ICUs), often leading to adverse outcomes. Hypoactive delirium is particularly difficult to detect. Despite advancements, timely identification of hypoactive delirium remains challenging due to its dynamic nature, lack of human resources, lack of reliable monitoring tools, and subtle clinical signs that include hypovigilance. Machine learning detection models could support the identification of hypoactive delirium episodes by better detecting episodes of hypovigilance. OBJECTIVE In this study, we aim to develop a machine learning algorithm capable of detecting hypovigilance events using routinely collected physiological data in the ICU. METHODS This derivation study used prospective observational data collected from eligible ICU patients in Lévis, Québec. We included patients admitted to the ICU between October 2021 and June 2022 who were at least 18 years old and had an anticipated ICU stay of at least 48 hours. ICU nurses identified hypovigilant states every hour using the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) or the Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS). Routine vital signs (heart rate, respiratory rate, blood pressure, and oxygen saturation), as well as other physiological and clinical variables (premature ventricular contractions, intubation, use of sedative medication, and fever), were automatically collected using a GE CARESCAPE Gateway or manually collected through chart review. Time series were generated around hypovigilance episodes for analysis. Random Forest, XGBoost, and LightGBM classifiers were then used to detect hypovigilant episodes on the basis of analyzing time series. Hyperparameter optimization was performed using random search in a 10-fold group cross-validation setup. We report the results of this study using the TRIPOD+AI guidelines and potential biases were assessed using PROBAST. RESULTS Out of 146 potentially eligible participants, data from 30 patients (mean age: 69 years old; 63% male) were collected for analysis. Of the group, 30% were admitted to the ICU for surgical reasons. Following data preprocessing, the study included 1,493 hypovigilance episodes and 764 non-hypovigilant episodes. Among the three sets of models evaluated, LightGBM demonstrated the best performance. It achieved an average accuracy of 68% to detect hypovigilant episodes, with a precision of 76%, a recall of 74%, an AUC of 60%, and an F1 score of 69%. Notably, the model was particularly influenced by intubation, respiratory rate, and systolic blood pressure acquired non-invasively. CONCLUSIONS All of the classifiers showed promising precision and recall, with slightly different yet comparable performance in classifying hypovigilant episodes. Machine learning algorithms designed to detect hypovigilance have the potential to support early detection of hypoactive delirium in ICU patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.287

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders→French-language works237,207→