Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37838818›Full record

Observational studyScientific reports2023

Continuous visualization and validation of pain in critically ill patients using artificial intelligence: a retrospective observational study.

Naoya Kobayashi, Kazuki Watanabe, Hitoshi Murakami, Masanori Yamauchi

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Naoya KobayashiDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan. naoya.kobayashi.a4@tohoku.ac.jp.
Kazuki WatanabeHitachi Solutions East Japan, Ltd, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan.
Hitoshi MurakamiHitachi Solutions East Japan, Ltd, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan.
Masanori YamauchiDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning tools have demonstrated viability in visualizing pain accurately using vital sign data; however, it remains uncertain whether incorporating individual patient baselines could enhance accuracy. This study aimed to investigate improving the accuracy by incorporating deviations from baseline patient vital signs and the concurrence of the predicted artificial intelligence values with the probability of critical care pain observation tool (CPOT) ≥ 3 after fentanyl administration. The study included adult patients in intensive care who underwent multiple pain-related assessments. We employed a random forest model, utilizing arterial pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, gender, age, and Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale score as explanatory variables. Pain was measured as the probability of CPOT scores of ≥ 3, and subsequently adjusted based on each patient's baseline. The study included 10,299 patients with 117,190 CPOT assessments. Of these, 3.3% had CPOT scores of ≥ 3. The random forest model demonstrated strong accuracy with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.903. Patients treated with fentanyl were grouped based on CPOT score improvement. Those with ≥ 1-h of improvement after fentanyl administration had a significantly lower pain index (P = 0.020). Therefore, incorporating deviations from baseline patient vital signs improved the accuracy of pain visualization using machine learning techniques.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceCritical IllnessAdultCritical CareFentanylHumansIntensive Care UnitsPainRetrospective StudiesFentanyl

Identifiers

PMID37838818
PMCPMC10576770

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.