Literature DB >> 35680771

Evaluation of machine learning models as decision aids for anesthesiologists.

Mihir Velagapudi1, Akira A Nair2, Wyndam Strodtbeck3, David N Flynn4, Keith Howell5, Justin S Liberman3, Joseph D Strunk3, Mayumi Horibe6, Ricky Harika3, Ava Alamdari3, Sheena Hembrador3, Sowmya Kantamneni6, Bala G Nair7,8.   

Abstract

Machine Learning (ML) models have been developed to predict perioperative clinical parameters. The objective of this study was to determine if ML models can serve as decision aids to improve anesthesiologists' prediction of peak intraoperative glucose values and postoperative opioid requirements. A web-based tool was used to present actual surgical case and patient information to 10 practicing anesthesiologists. They were asked to predict peak glucose levels and post-operative opioid requirements for 100 surgical patients with and without presenting ML model estimations of peak glucose and opioid requirements. The accuracies of the anesthesiologists' estimates with and without ML estimates as reference were compared. A questionnaire was also sent to the participating anesthesiologists to obtain their feedback on ML decision support. The accuracy of peak glucose level estimates by the anesthesiologists increased from 79.0 ± 13.7% without ML assistance to 84.7 ± 11.5% (< 0.001) when ML estimates were provided as reference. The accuracy of opioid requirement estimates increased from 18% without ML assistance to 42% (p < 0.001) when ML estimates were provided as reference. When ML estimates were provided, predictions of peak glucose improved for 8 out of the 10 anesthesiologists, while predictions of opioid requirements improved for 7 of the 10 anesthesiologists. Feedback questionnaire responses revealed that the anesthesiologist primarily used the ML estimates as reference to modify their clinical judgement. ML models can improve anesthesiologists' estimation of clinical parameters. ML predictions primarily served as reference information that modified an anesthesiologist's clinical estimate.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Anesthesia; Decision support; Machine learning; Surgery; Validation

Year:  2022        PMID: 35680771     DOI: 10.1007/s10877-022-00872-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput        ISSN: 1387-1307            Impact factor:   2.502


  16 in total

1.  Surgical data science for next-generation interventions.

Authors:  Lena Maier-Hein; Swaroop S Vedula; Stefanie Speidel; Nassir Navab; Ron Kikinis; Adrian Park; Matthias Eisenmann; Hubertus Feussner; Germain Forestier; Stamatia Giannarou; Makoto Hashizume; Darko Katic; Hannes Kenngott; Michael Kranzfelder; Anand Malpani; Keno März; Thomas Neumuth; Nicolas Padoy; Carla Pugh; Nicolai Schoch; Danail Stoyanov; Russell Taylor; Martin Wagner; Gregory D Hager; Pierre Jannin
Journal:  Nat Biomed Eng       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 25.671

2.  Machine-Learning Implementation in Clinical Anesthesia: Opportunities and Challenges.

Authors:  Danton S Char; Alyssa Burgart
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 5.108

3.  Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Anesthesiology.

Authors:  Christopher W Connor
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 7.892

4.  Artificial Intelligence in Anesthesiology: Hype, Hope, and Hurdles.

Authors:  Hannah Lonsdale; Ali Jalali; Jorge A Gálvez; Luis M Ahumada; Allan F Simpao
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 5.108

5.  Artificial Intelligence in Anesthesiology: Current Techniques, Clinical Applications, and Limitations.

Authors:  Daniel A Hashimoto; Elan Witkowski; Lei Gao; Ozanan Meireles; Guy Rosman
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 7.892

6.  Forecasting a Crisis: Machine-Learning Models Predict Occurrence of Intraoperative Bradycardia Associated With Hypotension.

Authors:  Stuart C Solomon; Rajeev C Saxena; Moni B Neradilek; Vickie Hau; Christine T Fong; John D Lang; Karen L Posner; Bala G Nair
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 5.108

7.  Supervised Machine-learning Predictive Analytics for Prediction of Postinduction Hypotension.

Authors:  Samir Kendale; Prathamesh Kulkarni; Andrew D Rosenberg; Jing Wang
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 7.892

8.  Artificial intelligence to support clinical decision-making processes.

Authors:  Carolina Garcia-Vidal; Gemma Sanjuan; Pedro Puerta-Alcalde; Estela Moreno-García; Alex Soriano
Journal:  EBioMedicine       Date:  2019-07-11       Impact factor: 8.143

9.  Artificial Intelligence for Anesthesia: What the Practicing Clinician Needs to Know: More than Black Magic for the Art of the Dark.

Authors:  Michael R Mathis; Sachin Kheterpal; Kayvan Najarian
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 7.892

10.  Development of a prediction model for hypotension after induction of anesthesia using machine learning.

Authors:  Ah Reum Kang; Jihyun Lee; Woohyun Jung; Misoon Lee; Sun Young Park; Jiyoung Woo; Sang Hyun Kim
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-04-16       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.