Open datasets in perioperative medicine: a narrative review

Towards equitable AI in oncology

Artificial intelligence (AI) stands at the threshold of revolutionizing clinical oncology, with considerable potential to improve early cancer detection and risk assessment, and to enable more accurate personalized treatment recommendations. However, a notable imbalance exists in the distribution of the benefits of AI, which disproportionately favour those living in specific geographical locations and in specific populations. In this Perspective, we discuss the need to foster the development of equitable AI tools that are both accurate in and accessible to a diverse range of patient populations, including those in low-income to middle-income countries. We also discuss some of the challenges and potential solutions in attaining equitable AI, including addressing the historically limited representation of diverse populations in existing clinical datasets and the use of inadequate clinical validation methods. Additionally, we focus on extant sources of inequity including the type of model approach (such as deep learning, and feature engineering-based methods), the implications of dataset curation strategies, the need for rigorous validation across a variety of populations and settings, and the risk of introducing contextual bias that comes with developing tools predominantly in high-income countries.

Artificial intelligence and nonoperating room anesthesia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA) represents a timely and significant advancement. As the demand for NORA services expands, the application of AI is poised to improve patient selection, perioperative care, and anesthesia delivery. This review examines AI's growing impact on NORA and how it can optimize our clinical practice in the near future.

RECENT FINDINGS

AI has already improved various aspects of anesthesia, including preoperative assessment, intraoperative management, and postoperative care. Studies highlight AI's role in patient risk stratification, real-time decision support, and predictive modeling for patient outcomes. Notably, AI applications can be used to target patients at risk of complications, alert clinicians to the upcoming occurrence of an intraoperative adverse event such as hypotension or hypoxemia, or predict their tolerance of anesthesia after the procedure. Despite these advances, challenges persist, including ethical considerations, algorithmic bias, data security, and the need for transparent decision-making processes within AI systems.

SUMMARY

The findings underscore the substantial benefits of AI in NORA, which include improved safety, efficiency, and personalized care. AI's predictive capabilities in assessing hypoxemia risk and other perioperative events, have demonstrated potential to exceed human prognostic accuracy. The implications of these findings advocate for a careful yet progressive adoption of AI in clinical practice, encouraging the development of robust ethical guidelines, continual professional training, and comprehensive data management strategies. Furthermore, AI's role in anesthesia underscores the need for multidisciplinary research to address the limitations and fully leverage AI's capabilities for patient-centered anesthesia care.

Quantifying the Suitability of Biosignals Acquired During Surgery for Multimodal Analysis

Goal: Recently, large datasets of biosignals acquired during surgery became available. As they offer multiple physiological signals measured in parallel, multimodal analysis - which involves their joint analysis - can be conducted and could provide deeper insights than unimodal analysis based on a single signal. However, it is unclear what percentage of intraoperatively acquired data is suitable for multimodal analysis. Due to the large amount of data, manual inspection and labelling into suitable and unsuitable segments are not feasible. Nevertheless, multimodal analysis is performed successfully in sleep studies since many years as their signals have proven suitable. Hence, this study evaluates the suitability to perform multimodal analysis on a surgery dataset (VitalDB) using a multi-center sleep dataset (SIESTA) as reference. Methods: We applied widely known algorithms entitled "signal quality indicators" to the common biosignals in both datasets, namely electrocardiography, electroencephalography, and respiratory signals split in segments of 10 s duration. As there are no multimodal methods available, we used only unimodal signal quality indicators. In case, all three signals were determined as being adequate by the indicators, we assumed that the whole signal segment was suitable for multimodal analysis. Results: 82% of SIESTA and 72% of VitalDB are suitable for multimodal analysis. Unsuitable signal segments exhibit constant or physiologically unreasonable values. Histogram examination indicated similar signal quality distributions between the datasets, albeit with potential statistical biases due to different measurement setups. Conclusions: The majority of data within VitalDB is suitable for multimodal analysis.

Derivation, External Validation and Clinical Implications of a deep learning approach for intracranial pressure estimation using non-cranial waveform measurements

Importance

Increased intracranial pressure (ICP) is associated with adverse neurological outcomes, but needs invasive monitoring.

Objective

Development and validation of an AI approach for detecting increased ICP (aICP) using only non-invasive extracranial physiological waveform data.

Design

Retrospective diagnostic study of AI-assisted detection of increased ICP. We developed an AI model using exclusively extracranial waveforms, externally validated it and assessed associations with clinical outcomes.

Setting

MIMIC-III Waveform Database (2000-2013), a database derived from patients admitted to an ICU in an academic Boston hospital, was used for development of the aICP model, and to report association with neurologic outcomes. Data from Mount Sinai Hospital (2020-2022) in New York City was used for external validation.

Participants

Patients were included if they were older than 18 years, and were monitored with electrocardiograms, arterial blood pressure, respiratory impedance plethysmography and pulse oximetry. Patients who additionally had intracranial pressure monitoring were used for development (N=157) and external validation (N=56). Patients without intracranial monitors were used for association with outcomes (N=1694).

Exposures

Extracranial waveforms including electrocardiogram, arterial blood pressure, plethysmography and SpO2.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Intracranial pressure > 15 mmHg. Measures were Area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs), sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy at threshold of 0.5. We calculated odds ratios and p-values for phenotype association.

Results

The AUROC was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.90-0.91) on testing and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.80-0.80) on external validation. aICP had accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 73.8% (95% CI, 72.0%-75.6%), 99.5% (95% CI 99.3%-99.6%), and 76.9% (95% CI, 74.0-79.8%) on external validation. A ten-percentile increment was associated with stroke (OR=2.12; 95% CI, 1.27-3.13), brain malignancy (OR=1.68; 95% CI, 1.09-2.60), subdural hemorrhage (OR=1.66; 95% CI, 1.07-2.57), intracerebral hemorrhage (OR=1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.32), and procedures like percutaneous brain biopsy (OR=1.58; 95% CI, 1.15-2.18) and craniotomy (OR = 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12-1.84; P < 0.05 for all).

Conclusions and Relevance

aICP provides accurate, non-invasive estimation of increased ICP, and is associated with neurological outcomes and neurosurgical procedures in patients without intracranial monitoring.