Predicting Agitation-Sedation Levels in Intensive Care Unit Patients: Development of an Ensemble Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Agitation and sedation management is critical in intensive care as it affects patient safety. Traditional nursing assessments suffer from low frequency and subjectivity. Automating these assessments can boost intensive care unit (ICU) efficiency, treatment capacity, and patient safety. objectives: The aim of this study was to develop a machine-learning based assessment of agitation and sedation. Methods: Using data from the Taichung Veterans General Hospital ICU database (2020), an ensemble learning model was developed for classifying the levels of agitation and sedation. Different ensemble learning model sequences were compared. In addition, an interpretable artificial intelligence approach, SHAP (Shapley additive explanations), was employed for explanatory analysis. Results: With 20 features and 121,303 data points, the random forest model achieved high area under the curve values across all models (sedation classification: 0.97; agitation classification: 0.88). The ensemble learning model enhanced agitation sensitivity (0.82) while maintaining high AUC values across all categories (all >0.82). The model explanations aligned with clinical experience. Conclusions: This study proposes an ICU agitation-sedation assessment automation using machine learning, enhancing efficiency and safety. Ensemble learning improves agitation sensitivity while maintaining accuracy. Real-time monitoring and future digital integration have the potential for advancements in intensive 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".