by Chanseo Lee, Jaihyoung Lee, Kimon-Aristotelis Vogt, Muhammad Munshi
BackgroundAccurate intraoperative detection of nociceptive events is essential for optimizing analgesic administration and improving postoperative outcomes. Although deep learning approaches promise improved modeling of complex physiologic dynamics, their added computational and operational complexity may not translate into clinically meaningful benefit, particularly in small, high-resolution perioperative datasets.
MethodsWe performed a head-to-head evaluation of classical supervised models (L1-regularized logistic regression and 50-, 200-tree Random Forests, with and without drug dosing features) against a Temporal Convolutional Network (TCN) transfer-learning framework for intraoperative nociception detection. Using 101 adult surgical cases with 30 physiologic and 18 drug dosing features sampled in 5-second windows, models were assessed under leave-one-surgery-out cross-validation using AUROC and AUPRC. We further examined probability calibration, multiple ensemble strategies, permutation importance features, and computational cost in terms of inference operations and memory footprint.
ResultsDrug-aware Random Forests of various trees (50 trees vs. 200 trees) achieved the highest discrimination (AUROC 0.716; AUPRC 0.399), outperforming the TCN transfer-learning model (AUROC 0.649; AUPRC 0.311). However, increasing personalization windows in the TCN yielded inconsistent and modest gains (p > 0.05). Isotonic calibration substantially improved probability calibration but did not affect discrimination. No ensemble method surpassed the standalone Random Forest; the gated network consistently assigned >84% weight to the classical model. Computational analysis revealed that while the TCN was more compact in total memory footprint, the smaller, 50-tree Random Forest inference required two orders of magnitude fewer operations, with faster training and lower operational complexity.
ConclusionsIn this clinically realistic benchmark, interpretable classical models operating on well-engineered features without personalization matched or exceeded the performance of a personalized deep learning approach while remaining computationally cheaper and simpler to deploy. These findings underscore the importance of rigorously justifying model complexity in perioperative machine learning and suggest that, for intraoperative nociception monitoring, classical approaches may offer a more favorable balance of accuracy, interpretability, and operational efficiency.
Acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure is a common reason for intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Non-invasive respiratory support strategies such as high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) and helmet non-invasive ventilation may reduce the need for invasive mechanical ventilation and death. The High-flow nasal Oxygen with or without alternating helmet Non-invasive ventilation for Oxygenation sUpport in acute Respiratory failure pilot trial is designed to compare helmet non-invasive ventilation combined with HFNO vs HFNO alone in patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure and to determine the feasibility of a larger randomised controlled trial.
This is a pragmatic, open-label, multicentre randomised controlled pilot trial enrolling 200 critically ill adults with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure across 12 Canadian ICUs. Participants are randomised 1 to 1 to receive either helmet non-invasive ventilation plus HFNO or HFNO alone for at least 48 hours. The primary aim is to assess feasibility metrics including recruitment rate, protocol adherence and fidelity to pre-specified intubation criteria. Secondary outcomes include rates of intubation, all-cause mortality, ventilator-free days, ICU length of stay and quality of life at 6 months. Primary and secondary outcomes will be analysed using Bayesian methods.
Ethics approval has been obtained at all participating centres. Findings will inform the feasibility and design of a future full-scale trial and be disseminated through peer review publications and conference presentations.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05078034.