Pain scores estimation using surgical pleth index and long short-term memory neural networks

IF 0.8 Q4 ROBOTICS
Omar M. T. Abdel Deen, Wei-Horng Jean, Shou-Zen Fan, Maysam F. Abbod, Jiann-Shing Shieh
{"title":"Pain scores estimation using surgical pleth index and long short-term memory neural networks","authors":"Omar M. T. Abdel Deen,&nbsp;Wei-Horng Jean,&nbsp;Shou-Zen Fan,&nbsp;Maysam F. Abbod,&nbsp;Jiann-Shing Shieh","doi":"10.1007/s10015-023-00880-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Pain monitoring is crucial to provide proper healthcare for patients during general anesthesia (GA). In this study, photoplethysmographic waveform amplitude (PPGA), heartbeat interval (HBI), and surgical pleth index (SPI) are utilized for predicting pain scores during GA based on expert medical doctors’ assessments (EMDAs). Time series features are fed into different long short-term memory (LSTM) models, with different hyperparameters. The models’ performance is evaluated using mean absolute error (MAE), standard deviation (SD), and correlation (Corr). Three different models are used, the first model resulted in 6.9271 ± 1.913, 9.4635 ± 2.456, and 0.5955 0.069 for an overall MAE, SD, and Corr, respectively. The second model resulted in 3.418 ± 0.715, 3.847 ± 0.557, and 0.634 ± 0.068 for an overall MAE, SD, and Corr, respectively. In contrast, the third model resulted in 3.4009 ± 0.648, 3.909 ± 0.548, and 0.6197 ± 0.0625 for an overall MAE, SD, and Corr, respectively. The second model is selected as the best model based on its performance and applied 5-fold cross-validation for verification. Statistical results are quite similar: 4.722 ± 0.742, 3.922 ± 0.672, and 0.597 ± 0.053 for MAE, SD, and Corr, respectively. In conclusion, the SPI effectively predicted pain score based on EMDA, not only on good evaluation performance, but the trend of EMDA is replicated, which can be interpreted as a relation between SPI and EMDA; however, further improvements on data consistency are also needed to validate the results and obtain better performance. Furthermore, the usage of further signal features could be considered along with SPI.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46050,"journal":{"name":"Artificial Life and Robotics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Artificial Life and Robotics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10015-023-00880-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ROBOTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Pain monitoring is crucial to provide proper healthcare for patients during general anesthesia (GA). In this study, photoplethysmographic waveform amplitude (PPGA), heartbeat interval (HBI), and surgical pleth index (SPI) are utilized for predicting pain scores during GA based on expert medical doctors’ assessments (EMDAs). Time series features are fed into different long short-term memory (LSTM) models, with different hyperparameters. The models’ performance is evaluated using mean absolute error (MAE), standard deviation (SD), and correlation (Corr). Three different models are used, the first model resulted in 6.9271 ± 1.913, 9.4635 ± 2.456, and 0.5955 0.069 for an overall MAE, SD, and Corr, respectively. The second model resulted in 3.418 ± 0.715, 3.847 ± 0.557, and 0.634 ± 0.068 for an overall MAE, SD, and Corr, respectively. In contrast, the third model resulted in 3.4009 ± 0.648, 3.909 ± 0.548, and 0.6197 ± 0.0625 for an overall MAE, SD, and Corr, respectively. The second model is selected as the best model based on its performance and applied 5-fold cross-validation for verification. Statistical results are quite similar: 4.722 ± 0.742, 3.922 ± 0.672, and 0.597 ± 0.053 for MAE, SD, and Corr, respectively. In conclusion, the SPI effectively predicted pain score based on EMDA, not only on good evaluation performance, but the trend of EMDA is replicated, which can be interpreted as a relation between SPI and EMDA; however, further improvements on data consistency are also needed to validate the results and obtain better performance. Furthermore, the usage of further signal features could be considered along with SPI.

基于手术体积指数和长短期记忆神经网络的疼痛评分评估
疼痛监测对于在全身麻醉(GA)期间为患者提供适当的医疗保健至关重要。在本研究中,基于专业医生的评估(EMDA),利用光体积描记波形振幅(PPGA)、心跳间隔(HBI)和手术体积指数(SPI)来预测GA期间的疼痛评分。时间序列特征被输入到具有不同超参数的不同长短期记忆(LSTM)模型中。使用平均绝对误差(MAE)、标准偏差(SD)和相关性(Corr)来评估模型的性能。使用了三种不同的模型,第一种模型的结果为6.9271 ± 1.913、9.4635 ± 总MAE、SD和Corr分别为2.456和0.5955 0.069。第二个模型得出3.418 ± 0.715、3.847 ± 0.557和0.634 ± 总MAE、SD和Corr分别为0.068。相比之下,第三个模型的结果是3.4009 ± 0.648、3.909 ± 0.548和0.6197 ± 总MAE、SD和Corr分别为0.0625。第二个模型根据其性能被选为最佳模型,并应用5倍交叉验证进行验证。统计结果非常相似:4.722 ± 0.742、3.922 ± 0.672和0.597 ± MAE、SD和Corr分别为0.053。总之,SPI基于EMDA有效地预测了疼痛评分,不仅具有良好的评估性能,而且EMDA的趋势是复制的,这可以解释为SPI与EMDA之间的关系;然而,还需要进一步改进数据一致性,以验证结果并获得更好的性能。此外,可以考虑与SPI一起使用进一步的信号特征。
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
2.00
自引率
22.20%
发文量
101
期刊介绍: Artificial Life and Robotics is an international journal publishing original technical papers and authoritative state-of-the-art reviews on the development of new technologies concerning artificial life and robotics, especially computer-based simulation and hardware for the twenty-first century. This journal covers a broad multidisciplinary field, including areas such as artificial brain research, artificial intelligence, artificial life, artificial living, artificial mind research, brain science, chaos, cognitive science, complexity, computer graphics, evolutionary computations, fuzzy control, genetic algorithms, innovative computations, intelligent control and modelling, micromachines, micro-robot world cup soccer tournament, mobile vehicles, neural networks, neurocomputers, neurocomputing technologies and applications, robotics, robus virtual engineering, and virtual reality. Hardware-oriented submissions are particularly welcome. Publishing body: International Symposium on Artificial Life and RoboticsEditor-in-Chiei: Hiroshi Tanaka Hatanaka R Apartment 101, Hatanaka 8-7A, Ooaza-Hatanaka, Oita city, Oita, Japan 870-0856 ©International Symposium on Artificial Life and Robotics
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信