ArticleBiomedical instrumentation & technology2022
Detecting Unusual Intravenous Infusion Alerting Patterns with Machine Learning Algorithms.
Article in Biomedical instrumentation & technology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Theoretical applications of artificial intelligence in smart infusion pump technology: Expert panel insights.American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists · 2026Article
- A review of human factors and infusion pumps: lessons for procurement.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo detect unusual infusion alerting patterns using machine learning (ML) algorithms as a first step to advance safer inpatient intravenous administration of high-alert medications. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe used one year of detailed propofol infusion data from a hospital. Interpretable and clinically relevant variables were feature engineered, and data points were aggregated per calendar day. A univariate (maximum times-limit) moving range (mr) control chart was used to simulate clinicians' common approach to identifying unusual infusion alerting patterns. Three different unsupervised multivariate ML-based anomaly detection algorithms (Local Outlier Factor, Isolation Forest, and k-Nearest Neighbors) were used for the same purpose. Results from the control chart and ML algorithms were compared.
resultsThe propofol data had 3,300 infusion alerts, 92% of which were generated during the day shift and seven of which had a times-limit greater than 10. The mr-chart identified 15 alert pattern anomalies. Different thresholds were set to include the top 15 anomalies from each ML algorithm. A total of 31 unique ML anomalies were grouped and ranked by agreeability. All algorithms agreed on 10% of the anomalies, and at least two algorithms agreed on 36%. Each algorithm detected one specific anomaly that the mr-chart did not detect. The anomaly represented a day with 71 propofol alerts (half of which were overridden) generated at an average rate of 1.06 per infusion, whereas the moving alert rate for the week was 0.35 per infusion. DISCUSSION: These findings show that ML-based algorithms are more robust than control charts in detecting unusual alerting patterns. However, we recommend using a combination of algorithms, as multiple algorithms serve a benchmarking function and allow researchers to focus on data points with the highest algorithm agreeability.
conclusionUnsupervised ML algorithms can assist clinicians in identifying unusual alert patterns as a first step toward achieving safer infusion practices.
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.