Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: Dynamic and precise estimation of blood loss (EBL) is quite important for perioperative management. To date, the Triton System, based on feature extraction technology (FET), has been applied to estimate intra-operative haemoglobin (Hb) loss but is unable to directly assess the amount of blood loss. We aimed to develop a method for the dynamic and precise EBL and estimate Hb loss (EHL) based on artificial intelligence (AI).
Methods: We collected surgical patients' non-recycled blood to generate blood-soaked sponges at a set gradient of volume. After image acquisition and preprocessing, FET and densely connected convolutional networks (DenseNet) were applied for EBL and EHL. The accuracy was evaluated using R2, the mean absolute error (MAE), the mean square error (MSE), and the Bland-Altman analysis.
Results: For EBL, the R2, MAE and MSE for the method based on DenseNet were 0.966 (95% CI: 0.962-0.971), 0.186 (95% CI: 0.167-0.207) and 0.096 (95% CI: 0.084-0.109), respectively. For EHL, the R2, MAE and MSE for the method based on DenseNet were 0.941 (95% CI: 0.934-0.948), 0.325 (95% CI: 0.293-0.355) and 0.284 (95% CI: 0.251-0.317), respectively. The accuracies of EBL and EHL based on DenseNet were more satisfactory than that of FET. Bland-Altman analysis revealed a bias of 0.02 ml with narrow limits of agreement (LOA) (-0.47 to 0.52 mL) and of 0.05 g with narrow LOA (-0.87 to 0.97 g) between the methods based on DenseNet and actual blood loss and Hb loss.
Conclusions: We developed a simpler and more accurate AI-based method for EBL and EHL, which may be more fit for surgeries primarily using sponges and with a small to medium amount of blood loss.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7607084 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-1806 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!