Hypotension prediction index in the prediction of better outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The hypotension prediction index (HPI) is an algorithm designed to predict hypotension. Some studies have reported that HPI-guided hemodynamic management strategies decrease intraoperative hypotension and complications; however, the effect of HPI on reducing perioperative complications is controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy of the HPI in reducing major complications and intraoperative hypotension. METHODS: We conducted this meta-analysis according to the PRISMA statement and Cochrane Handbook guidelines. A comprehensive literature review was conducted to identify studies focusing on the efficacy of HPI-guided management in reducing intraoperative hypotension and postoperative complications. The PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched, and the resulting data were combined to calculate the pooled mean differences or risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs of both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies, as appropriate. Heterogeneity and potential publication bias were also assessed. RESULTS: Nineteen articles (12 RCTs and 7 retrospective studies) with 2570 recruited patients were included in this meta-analysis. The critical evaluation of the study quality revealed a low risk of bias in the included RCTs. Among the non-randomized trials, one was rated 7, two were rated 8, and the remaining four were rated 9 on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, indicating high quality and a low risk of bias. HPI-guided management significantly reduced intraoperative hypotension and associated major complications (RR = 0.79, 95% CI [0.69-0.90], I2 = 0, P < 0.001). Blood loss and length of hospital stay were comparable between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: HPI-guided management significantly reduced intraoperative hypotension and major complications.
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 | 0.019 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.052 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".