scholarly journals Machine learning algorithm to perform ASA Physical Status Classification

Author(s):  
Alexander Pozhitkov ◽  
Naini Seth ◽  
Trilokesh D. Kidambi ◽  
John Raytis ◽  
Srisairam Achuthan ◽  
...  

AbstractBackgroundThe American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status Classification System defines peri-operative patient scores as 1 (healthy) thru 6 (brain dead). The scoring is used by the anesthesiologists to classify surgical patients based on co-morbidities and various clinical characteristics. The classification is always done by an anesthesiologist prior operation. There is a variability in scoring stemming from individual experiences / biases of the scoring anesthesiologists, which impacts prediction of operating times, length of stay in the hospital, necessity of blood transfusion, etc. In addition, the score affects anesthesia coding and billing. It is critical to remove subjectivity from the process to achieve reproducible generalizable scoring.MethodsA machine learning (ML) approach was used to associate assigned ASA scores with peri-operative patients’ clinical characteristics. More than ten ML algorithms were simultaneously trained, validated, and tested with retrospective records. The most accurate algorithm was chosen for a subsequent test on an independent dataset. DataRobot platform was used to run and select the ML algorithms. Manual scoring was also performed by one anesthesiologist. Intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to assess the consistency of scoringResultsRecords of 19,095 procedures corresponding to 12,064 patients with assigned ASA scores by 17 City of Hope anesthesiologists were used to train a number of ML algorithms (DataRobot platform). The most accurate algorithm was tested with independent records of 2325 procedures corresponding to 1999 patients. In addition, 86 patients from the same dataset were scored manually. The following ICC values were computed: COH anesthesiologists vs. ML – 0.427 (fair); manual vs. ML – 0.523 (fair-to-good); manual vs. COH anesthesiologists – 0.334 (poor).ConclusionsWe have shown the feasibility of using ML for assessing the ASA score. In principle, a group of experts (i.e. physicians, institutions, etc.) can train the ML algorithm such that individual experiences and biases would cancel each leaving the objective ASA score intact. As more data are being collected, a valid foundation for refinement to the ML will emerge.

2008 ◽  
Vol 55 (4) ◽  
pp. 109-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enrico Facco ◽  
Gastone Zanette ◽  
Giovanni Manani

Abstract To test the Italian translation of Corah's Dental Anxiety Scale (DAS) and to check the relationship between dental anxiety and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification (ASA-PS), the DAS was translated into Italian and administered to 1072 Italian patients (620 male and 452 female patients, ages 14–85 years) undergoing oral surgery. Patients' conditions were checked and rated according to the ASA-PS. The DAS ranged from 4 to 20 (modus  =  8, median  =  10); 59.5% of patients had a DAS of 7–12, 26.1% had a DAS >12, and 10.3% had a DAS >15. The mean DAS was 10.29 (95% confidence limit  =  0.19); female patients were more anxious than male patients (P < .001), while patients older than 60 years showed a significant decrease in the level of anxiety. Five hundred two patients were rated as ASA-PS class P1, 502 as ASA-PS class P2, and 68 as ASA-PS class P3, with a mean DAS score of 9.69, 10.78, and 11.09, respectively: the DAS difference between groups was significant (P < .001).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document