Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33523353›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2022

Detection of arterial pressure waveform error using machine learning trained algorithms.

Joseph Rinehart, Jia Tang, Jennifer Nam, Sophie Sha, Paulette Mensah, Hailey Maxwell, Michael-David Calderon, Michael Ma, Alexandre Joosten

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Joseph RinehartDepartment of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Care, University of California Irvine, 101 The City Drive South, Orange, CA, 92868, USA. jrinehar@hs.uci.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-2975-196X
Jia TangDepartment of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Care, University of California Irvine, 101 The City Drive South, Orange, CA, 92868, USA.
Jennifer NamDepartment of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Care, University of California Irvine, 101 The City Drive South, Orange, CA, 92868, USA.
Sophie ShaDepartment of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Care, University of California Irvine, 101 The City Drive South, Orange, CA, 92868, USA.
Paulette MensahDepartment of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Care, University of California Irvine, 101 The City Drive South, Orange, CA, 92868, USA.
Hailey MaxwellDepartment of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Care, University of California Irvine, 101 The City Drive South, Orange, CA, 92868, USA.
Michael-David CalderonDepartment of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Care, University of California Irvine, 101 The City Drive South, Orange, CA, 92868, USA.
Michael MaDepartment of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Care, University of California Irvine, 101 The City Drive South, Orange, CA, 92868, USA.
Alexandre JoostenDepartment of Anesthesiology, CUB Erasme, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In critically ill and high-risk surgical room patients, an invasive arterial catheter is often inserted to continuously measure arterial pressure (AP). The arterial waveform pressure measurement, however, may be compromised by damping or inappropriate reference placement of the pressure transducer. Clinicians, decision support systems, or closed-loop applications that rely on such information would benefit from the ability to detect error from the waveform alone. In the present study we hypothesized that machine-learning trained algorithms could discriminate three types of transducer error from accurate monitoring with receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve areas greater than 0.9. After obtaining written consent, patient arterial line waveform data was collected in the operating room in real-time during routine surgery requiring arterial pressure monitoring. Three deliberate error conditions were introduced during monitoring: Damping, Transducer High, and Transducer Low. The waveforms were split up into 10 s clips that were featurized. The data was also either calibrated against the patient's own baseline or left uncalibrated. The data was then split into training and validation sets, and machine-learning algorithms were run in a Monte-Carlo fashion on the training data with variable sized training sets and hyperparameters. The algorithms with the highest balanced accuracy were pruned, then the highest performing algorithm in the training set for each error state (High, Low, Damped) for both calibrated and uncalibrated data was finally tested against the validation set and the ROC and precision-recall curve area-under the curve (AUC) calculated. 38 patients were enrolled in the study with a mean age of 52 ± 15 years. A total of 40 h of monitoring time was recorded with approximately 120,000 heart beats featurized. For all error states, ROC AUCs for algorithm performance on classification of the state were greater than 0.9; when using patient-specific calibrated data AUCs were 0.94, 0.95, and 0.99 for the transducer low, transducer high, and damped conditions respectively. Machine-learning trained algorithms were able to discriminate arterial line transducer error states from the waveform alone with a high degree of accuracy.

Indexed as

Arterial PressureMachine LearningAdultAgedAlgorithmsArteriesHeart RateHumansMiddle AgedInvasive blood pressure measurementMachine learningMonitoring error

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.