MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Integration of machine learning with patient-specific cardiovascular computational fluid dynamics models for predicting hemodynamic instability and identifying underlying cause

2025· article· en· W7127959986 on OpenAlexaff
K Sughimoto, Daiki Koda, K Maeda, T Miki, Ryutaro Kasai, Takahisa Sakurai, Hajime Sakurai, Jacob Levman, H Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHemodynamicsSupport vector machineComputational fluid dynamicsWaveformBlood pressureFeature (linguistics)Intensive careStability (learning theory)Cardiac output

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Although experience plays a crucial role in decision-making for critically ill patients following cardiac surgery in the paediatric intensive care unit (PICU), standardised patient care is equally essential. Patient-specific cardiovascular computational fluid dynamics modelling (CFD) can replicate a patient’s detailed haemodynamics as a digital twin. When combined with machine learning, the patient-specific cardiovascular CFD model can identify which haemodynamic parameter is responsible for the disturbance. Purpose By combining machine learning with patient-specific cardiovascular CFD models of children who have undergone cardiac surgery, we aim to predict lactate levels as a marker of haemodynamic stability or instability and identify the most influential haemodynamic parameters affecting lactate level prediction. Methods Twenty-two postoperative children (13 females and 9 males, median age of 7 months, and median weight of 3.2 kg) who underwent definitive biventricular repair were included. In total, 290 blood draws and corresponding arterial waveforms were collected. The radial artery waveforms were reconstructed by minimising the differences between the actual and re-created waveforms derived from patient-specific cardiovascular CFD models. For the machine learning process, three non-linear regression algorithms (Random Forest, Gradient-Boosting Decision Tree, and Support Vector Machines) were compared to determine the best predictive performance for lactate levels, using mean absolute error (MAE) as the evaluation metric, while feature importance was evaluated by Shapley Additive explanation (SHAP) score. The input data included patient characteristics, blood gas data (lactate level), arterial waveform features (heart rate, systolic/diastolic pressure, area under the curve, and peak angle sharpness), and estimated cardiovascular parameters from the patient-specific CFD models (systemic/pulmonary resistance and compliance, and ventricular elastance). The output variable was the lactate level at an arbitrary timing of blood draw. Results The Random Forest demonstrated the lowest mean absolute error (MAE) of 2.93 mg/dL when the recent lactate level was included as an input alongside the patient-specific CFD model parameters. Feature importance analysis revealed that the recent lactate level had the highest SHAP score of 10.05 (83%), followed by heart rate at 0.34 (2.8%), duration since previous blood draw at 0.21 (1.7%), and systemic arterial compliance at 0.21 (1.0%). Conclusion By combining machine learning with patient-specific CFD models, including measured data, lactate levels can be predicted with high accuracy. With this approach, patient-specific CFD models can function as digital twins and help explain the underlying mechanisms of haemodynamic stability and instability in postoperative care in the PICU.Prediction of lactate level Mean absolute error of three algorithms

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.248 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyFrench-language works237,207