ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2020
A better method for the dynamic, precise estimating of blood/haemoglobin loss based on deep learning of artificial intelligence.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Machine Learning in Assessing Intraoperative Blood Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International nursing review · 2026Pooled it
- Automated deep learning model for estimating intraoperative blood loss using gauze images.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Real-time and accurate estimation of surgical hemoglobin loss using deep learning-based medical sponges image analysis.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDynamic and precise estimation of blood loss (EBL) is quite important for perioperative management. To date, the Triton System, based on feature extraction technology (FET), has been applied to estimate intra-operative haemoglobin (Hb) loss but is unable to directly assess the amount of blood loss. We aimed to develop a method for the dynamic and precise EBL and estimate Hb loss (EHL) based on artificial intelligence (AI).
methodsWe collected surgical patients' non-recycled blood to generate blood-soaked sponges at a set gradient of volume. After image acquisition and preprocessing, FET and densely connected convolutional networks (DenseNet) were applied for EBL and EHL. The accuracy was evaluated using R2, the mean absolute error (MAE), the mean square error (MSE), and the Bland-Altman analysis.
resultsFor EBL, the R2, MAE and MSE for the method based on DenseNet were 0.966 (95% CI: 0.962-0.971), 0.186 (95% CI: 0.167-0.207) and 0.096 (95% CI: 0.084-0.109), respectively. For EHL, the R2, MAE and MSE for the method based on DenseNet were 0.941 (95% CI: 0.934-0.948), 0.325 (95% CI: 0.293-0.355) and 0.284 (95% CI: 0.251-0.317), respectively. The accuracies of EBL and EHL based on DenseNet were more satisfactory than that of FET. Bland-Altman analysis revealed a bias of 0.02 ml with narrow limits of agreement (LOA) (-0.47 to 0.52 mL) and of 0.05 g with narrow LOA (-0.87 to 0.97 g) between the methods based on DenseNet and actual blood loss and Hb loss.
conclusionsWe developed a simpler and more accurate AI-based method for EBL and EHL, which may be more fit for surgeries primarily using sponges and with a small to medium amount of blood loss.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.