Nada Chaari, Greg Winski, Magnus Hallbäck, Niclas Lundström, Håkan Björne, Martin Jacobsson
{"title":"对术中低血压的可靠预测:基于深度学习和map衍生方法的跨中心评估。","authors":"Nada Chaari, Greg Winski, Magnus Hallbäck, Niclas Lundström, Håkan Björne, Martin Jacobsson","doi":"10.1007/s10877-025-01357-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Intraoperative hypotension (IOH) is associated with an increased risk of heart and kidney complications. Although AI tools aim to predict IOH, their real-world reliability is often overstated due to biased data selection. This study introduces a framework to enhance reliability by: (1) including borderline blood pressure cases (65-75 mmHg, the \"Gray Zone\"), (2) comparing AI model to simple blood pressure threshold, and (3) validating across diverse surgical cohorts, centers and demographics. Using datasets from Karolinska University Hospital (Sweden) and VitalDB (Korea), we found AI model performs better than MAP threshold method in more ambiguous cases. In contrast, when hypotensive and non-hypotensive cases had clearly separated MAP values, both methods performed similarly well. Cross-validation revealed asymmetric generalizability: models trained on datasets containing more borderline (Gray Zone) cases generalized better to datasets with clearer class separation, whereas the reverse struggled. To ensure fair model comparison and reduce dataset-specific bias, we standardized the MAP difference between positive (hypotension) and negative (non-hypotension) samples at the time of prediction. This virtually eliminated the class separation and demonstrated that inflated performance in some datasets can be attributed to selection bias rather than true model generalizability. Age also influenced generalization: Cross-age validation revealed models trained on older patients generalized better to younger cohorts, whereas differences in ASA classification had minimal effect. These findings highlight the need for realistic validation to bridge the gap between AI research and clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":15513,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Towards reliable prediction of intraoperative hypotension: a cross-center evaluation of deep learning-based and MAP-derived methods.\",\"authors\":\"Nada Chaari, Greg Winski, Magnus Hallbäck, Niclas Lundström, Håkan Björne, Martin Jacobsson\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10877-025-01357-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Intraoperative hypotension (IOH) is associated with an increased risk of heart and kidney complications. Although AI tools aim to predict IOH, their real-world reliability is often overstated due to biased data selection. This study introduces a framework to enhance reliability by: (1) including borderline blood pressure cases (65-75 mmHg, the \\\"Gray Zone\\\"), (2) comparing AI model to simple blood pressure threshold, and (3) validating across diverse surgical cohorts, centers and demographics. Using datasets from Karolinska University Hospital (Sweden) and VitalDB (Korea), we found AI model performs better than MAP threshold method in more ambiguous cases. In contrast, when hypotensive and non-hypotensive cases had clearly separated MAP values, both methods performed similarly well. Cross-validation revealed asymmetric generalizability: models trained on datasets containing more borderline (Gray Zone) cases generalized better to datasets with clearer class separation, whereas the reverse struggled. To ensure fair model comparison and reduce dataset-specific bias, we standardized the MAP difference between positive (hypotension) and negative (non-hypotension) samples at the time of prediction. This virtually eliminated the class separation and demonstrated that inflated performance in some datasets can be attributed to selection bias rather than true model generalizability. Age also influenced generalization: Cross-age validation revealed models trained on older patients generalized better to younger cohorts, whereas differences in ASA classification had minimal effect. These findings highlight the need for realistic validation to bridge the gap between AI research and clinical practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15513,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-025-01357-0\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-025-01357-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Towards reliable prediction of intraoperative hypotension: a cross-center evaluation of deep learning-based and MAP-derived methods.
Intraoperative hypotension (IOH) is associated with an increased risk of heart and kidney complications. Although AI tools aim to predict IOH, their real-world reliability is often overstated due to biased data selection. This study introduces a framework to enhance reliability by: (1) including borderline blood pressure cases (65-75 mmHg, the "Gray Zone"), (2) comparing AI model to simple blood pressure threshold, and (3) validating across diverse surgical cohorts, centers and demographics. Using datasets from Karolinska University Hospital (Sweden) and VitalDB (Korea), we found AI model performs better than MAP threshold method in more ambiguous cases. In contrast, when hypotensive and non-hypotensive cases had clearly separated MAP values, both methods performed similarly well. Cross-validation revealed asymmetric generalizability: models trained on datasets containing more borderline (Gray Zone) cases generalized better to datasets with clearer class separation, whereas the reverse struggled. To ensure fair model comparison and reduce dataset-specific bias, we standardized the MAP difference between positive (hypotension) and negative (non-hypotension) samples at the time of prediction. This virtually eliminated the class separation and demonstrated that inflated performance in some datasets can be attributed to selection bias rather than true model generalizability. Age also influenced generalization: Cross-age validation revealed models trained on older patients generalized better to younger cohorts, whereas differences in ASA classification had minimal effect. These findings highlight the need for realistic validation to bridge the gap between AI research and clinical practice.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing is a clinical journal publishing papers related to technology in the fields of anaesthesia, intensive care medicine, emergency medicine, and peri-operative medicine.
The journal has links with numerous specialist societies, including editorial board representatives from the European Society for Computing and Technology in Anaesthesia and Intensive Care (ESCTAIC), the Society for Technology in Anesthesia (STA), the Society for Complex Acute Illness (SCAI) and the NAVAt (NAVigating towards your Anaestheisa Targets) group.
The journal publishes original papers, narrative and systematic reviews, technological notes, letters to the editor, editorial or commentary papers, and policy statements or guidelines from national or international societies. The journal encourages debate on published papers and technology, including letters commenting on previous publications or technological concerns. The journal occasionally publishes special issues with technological or clinical themes, or reports and abstracts from scientificmeetings. Special issues proposals should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief. Specific details of types of papers, and the clinical and technological content of papers considered within scope can be found in instructions for authors.