From Static Risk Estimates to Dynamic Clinical Trajectories: A Conceptual Analysis of Perioperative Medicine.

IF 1.4 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Michele Danilo Pierri
{"title":"From Static Risk Estimates to Dynamic Clinical Trajectories: A Conceptual Analysis of Perioperative Medicine.","authors":"Michele Danilo Pierri","doi":"10.1007/s10728-026-00584-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Perioperative risk assessment still relies largely on models that estimate outcomes from variables measured at a single time point. These tools remain useful for cohort stratification, communication of baseline risk, and perioperative planning, but they often underrepresent the temporal dynamics that shape individual postoperative trajectories. That mismatch may reflect more than ordinary clinical variability. At least in part, it may point to a limitation in how perioperative risk itself is conceptualized. This paper offers a conceptual analysis drawing on physiology, critical care medicine, and dynamic systems theory. Its central claim is simple: perioperative risk may be better understood as a trajectory through physiological state space than as a fixed probability assigned before surgery. Surgical interventions can then be viewed as structured perturbations imposed on already reconfigured biological systems, with responses shaped by prior states, adaptive capacity, and physiological resilience. From this perspective, postoperative complications are not merely isolated adverse events. They may instead mark transitions between physiological regimes. Processes such as sterile inflammation, microcirculatory dysfunction, organ crosstalk, and loss of physiological complexity may help explain why postoperative trajectories diverge so sharply. Cardiac surgery provides a particularly clear setting in which these dynamics become visible, although the broader argument likely extends beyond it. The analysis has practical implications for clinical reasoning in high-risk settings. Rather than displacing static prediction, it highlights dimensions of perioperative risk, such as state dependence, irreversibility, and loss of resilience, that static models represent only incompletely. That shift does not solve the problem of perioperative uncertainty. It does, however, describe it more faithfully.</p>","PeriodicalId":46740,"journal":{"name":"Health Care Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Care Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-026-00584-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Perioperative risk assessment still relies largely on models that estimate outcomes from variables measured at a single time point. These tools remain useful for cohort stratification, communication of baseline risk, and perioperative planning, but they often underrepresent the temporal dynamics that shape individual postoperative trajectories. That mismatch may reflect more than ordinary clinical variability. At least in part, it may point to a limitation in how perioperative risk itself is conceptualized. This paper offers a conceptual analysis drawing on physiology, critical care medicine, and dynamic systems theory. Its central claim is simple: perioperative risk may be better understood as a trajectory through physiological state space than as a fixed probability assigned before surgery. Surgical interventions can then be viewed as structured perturbations imposed on already reconfigured biological systems, with responses shaped by prior states, adaptive capacity, and physiological resilience. From this perspective, postoperative complications are not merely isolated adverse events. They may instead mark transitions between physiological regimes. Processes such as sterile inflammation, microcirculatory dysfunction, organ crosstalk, and loss of physiological complexity may help explain why postoperative trajectories diverge so sharply. Cardiac surgery provides a particularly clear setting in which these dynamics become visible, although the broader argument likely extends beyond it. The analysis has practical implications for clinical reasoning in high-risk settings. Rather than displacing static prediction, it highlights dimensions of perioperative risk, such as state dependence, irreversibility, and loss of resilience, that static models represent only incompletely. That shift does not solve the problem of perioperative uncertainty. It does, however, describe it more faithfully.

从静态风险估计到动态临床轨迹:围手术期医学的概念分析。
围手术期风险评估在很大程度上仍然依赖于从单个时间点测量的变量估计结果的模型。这些工具对队列分层、基线风险沟通和围手术期计划仍然有用,但它们往往不能充分代表塑造个体术后轨迹的时间动态。这种不匹配可能反映的不仅仅是普通的临床变异性。至少在某种程度上,它可能指出围手术期风险本身如何概念化的局限性。本文从生理学、重症医学和动态系统理论等方面进行了概念分析。其核心观点很简单:围手术期风险可以更好地理解为通过生理状态空间的轨迹,而不是在手术前分配的固定概率。手术干预可以被看作是对已经重新配置的生物系统施加的结构性扰动,其反应由先前的状态、适应能力和生理弹性形成。从这个角度来看,术后并发症不仅仅是孤立的不良事件。相反,它们可能标志着生理状态之间的转变。无菌性炎症、微循环功能障碍、器官串扰和生理复杂性丧失等过程可能有助于解释为什么术后轨迹差异如此之大。心脏外科手术提供了一个特别清晰的环境,使这些动态变得可见,尽管更广泛的争论可能超出了它。该分析对高危环境下的临床推理具有实际意义。它没有取代静态预测,而是强调了围手术期风险的维度,如状态依赖性、不可逆性和恢复力丧失,而静态模型只能不完全地代表这些风险。这种转变并不能解决围手术期的不确定性问题。然而,它确实更忠实地描述了它。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
期刊介绍: Health Care Analysis is a journal that promotes dialogue and debate about conceptual and normative issues related to health and health care, including health systems, healthcare provision, health law, public policy and health, professional health practice, health services organization and decision-making, and health-related education at all levels of clinical medicine, public health and global health. Health Care Analysis seeks to support the conversation between philosophy and policy, in particular illustrating the importance of conceptual and normative analysis to health policy, practice and research. As such, papers accepted for publication are likely to analyse philosophical questions related to health, health care or health policy that focus on one or more of the following: aims or ends, theories, frameworks, concepts, principles, values or ideology. All styles of theoretical analysis are welcome providing that they illuminate conceptual or normative issues and encourage debate between those interested in health, philosophy and policy. Papers must be rigorous, but should strive for accessibility – with care being taken to ensure that their arguments and implications are plain to a broad academic and international audience. In addition to purely theoretical papers, papers grounded in empirical research or case-studies are very welcome so long as they explore the conceptual or normative implications of such work. Authors are encouraged, where possible, to have regard to the social contexts of the issues they are discussing, and all authors should ensure that they indicate the ‘real world’ implications of their work. Health Care Analysis publishes contributions from philosophers, lawyers, social scientists, healthcare educators, healthcare professionals and administrators, and other health-related academics and policy analysts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书