JMIR Perioperative Medicine (Oct 2022)

Demonstration and Performance Evaluation of Two Novel Algorithms for Removing Artifacts From Automated Intraoperative Temperature Data Sets: Multicenter, Observational, Retrospective Study

  • Amit Bardia,
  • Ranjit Deshpande,
  • George Michel,
  • David Yanez,
  • Feng Dai,
  • Nathan L Pace,
  • Kevin Schuster,
  • Michael R Mathis,
  • Sachin Kheterpal,
  • Robert B Schonberger

DOI
https://doi.org/10.2196/37174
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 5, no. 1
p. e37174

Abstract

Read online

BackgroundThe automated acquisition of intraoperative patient temperature data via temperature probes leads to the possibility of producing a number of artifacts related to probe positioning that may impact these probes’ utility for observational research. ObjectiveWe sought to compare the performance of two de novo algorithms for filtering such artifacts. MethodsIn this observational retrospective study, the intraoperative temperature data of adults who received general anesthesia for noncardiac surgery were extracted from the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group registry. Two algorithms were developed and then compared to the reference standard—anesthesiologists’ manual artifact detection process. Algorithm 1 (a slope-based algorithm) was based on the linear curve fit of 3 adjacent temperature data points. Algorithm 2 (an interval-based algorithm) assessed for time gaps between contiguous temperature recordings. Sensitivity and specificity values for artifact detection were calculated for each algorithm, as were mean temperatures and areas under the curve for hypothermia (temperatures below 36 °C) for each patient, after artifact removal via each methodology. ResultsA total of 27,683 temperature readings from 200 anesthetic records were analyzed. The overall agreement among the anesthesiologists was 92.1%. Both algorithms had high specificity but moderate sensitivity (specificity: 99.02% for algorithm 1 vs 99.54% for algorithm 2; sensitivity: 49.13% for algorithm 1 vs 37.72% for algorithm 2; F-score: 0.65 for algorithm 1 vs 0.55 for algorithm 2). The areas under the curve for time × hypothermic temperature and the mean temperatures recorded for each case after artifact removal were similar between the algorithms and the anesthesiologists. ConclusionsThe tested algorithms provide an automated way to filter intraoperative temperature artifacts that closely approximates manual sorting by anesthesiologists. Our study provides evidence demonstrating the efficacy of highly generalizable artifact reduction algorithms that can be readily used by observational studies that rely on automated intraoperative data acquisition.