MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406324937 · doi:10.1097/aln.0000000000005370

Preliminary Development and Validation of Automated Nociception Recognition Using Computer Vision in Perioperative Patients

2025· article· en· W4406324937 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Timothy A. Heintz, Anusha Badathala, Avery Wooten, Cassandra Cu, A. B. Wallace, Benjamin K. Pham, Arthur W. Wallace, Julien Cobert

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePerioperativeDeliriumReceiver operating characteristicCohortConfidence intervalCohort studyPain assessmentPhysical therapySurgeryInternal medicinePain managementIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Effective pain recognition and treatment in perioperative environments reduce length of stay and decrease risk of delirium and chronic pain. The authors sought to develop and validate preliminary computer vision-based approaches for nociception detection in hospitalized patients. METHODS: This was a prospective observational cohort study using red-green-blue camera detection of perioperative patients. Adults (18 yr or older) admitted for surgical procedures to the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center (San Francisco, California) were included across two study phases: (1) the algorithm development phase and (2) the internal validation phase. Continuous recordings occurred perioperatively across any postoperative setting. The authors inputted facial images into convolutional neural networks using a pretrained backbone to classify (1) the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) and (2) the numeric rating scale. Outcomes were binary pain/no pain. We performed external validation for CPOT and numerical rating scale classification on data from the University of Northern British Columbia (Prince George, Canada)-McMaster University (Hamilton, Canada) and the Delaware Pain Database. Perturbation models were used for explainability. RESULTS: The study included 130 patients for development, 77 patients for the validation cohort, and 25 patients from University of Northern British Columbia-McMaster University and 229 patients from Delaware datasets for external validation. Model areas under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic for CPOT models were 0.71 (95% CI, 0.70 to 0.74) on the development cohort, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.90 to 0.92) on the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center validation cohort, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.89 to 0.93) on University of Northern British Columbia-McMaster University, and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.85) on Delaware. The numeric rating scale model had lower performance (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.55 to 0.61]). Brier scores improved after calibration across multiple different techniques. Perturbation models for CPOT models revealed eyebrows, nose, lips, and forehead were most important for model prediction. CONCLUSIONS: Automated nociception detection using computer vision alone is feasible but requires additional testing and validation given the small datasets used. Future multicenter observational studies are required to better understand the potential for automated continuous assessments for nociception detection in hospitalized 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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesiologySame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207