arXiv:2611.09259v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Background: Binary hypotension forecasts do not describe the depth and duration of future low pressure. Burden forecasts may support graded early warning, but better forecast scores need not yield more useful alerts.
Objective: To evaluate conditional quantiles of the next 15-minute mean arterial pressure (MAP) deficit below 65 mmHg and distinguish forecasting performance from episode-warning performance.
Methods: Public VitalDB numeric arterial MAP was reduced to 10-second medians without forward filling. Subject-disjoint training, validation and test splits included 70,402, 14,270 and 15,575 labeled windows. We compared climatology, calibrated persistence, last-MAP-only boosting, and direct and residual quantile boosting, with and without additional MAP-history features. Patient-weighted pinball loss and subject-bootstrap intervals evaluated forecasting. Validation selected alert thresholds before a hash-recorded test evaluation.
Results: In the test split, the prespecified residual-versus-persistence comparison at the 90th percentile yielded losses of 2.256 and 2.900 mmHg-min, respectively (difference -0.644; 95% interval -0.814 to -0.487). Direct prediction achieved 2.196, and direct prediction with additional MAP features achieved 2.193. Episode-warning results were sensitive to the alert rule and operating threshold.
Conclusions: This retrospective benchmark separates burden-forecast skill from warning-policy performance. Findings support further study of direct burden estimation; they do not establish patient benefit, prospective reliability or transportability beyond the source hospital.
Abstract: Background: Binary hypotension forecasts do not describe the depth and duration of future low pressure. Burden forecasts may support graded early warning, but better forecast scores need not yield more useful alerts.
Objective: To evaluate conditional quantiles of the next 15-minute mean arterial pressure (MAP) deficit below 65 mmHg and distinguish forecasting performance from episode-warning performance.
Methods: Public VitalDB numeric arterial MAP was reduced to 10-second medians without forward filling. Subject-disjoint training, validation and test splits included 70,402, 14,270 and 15,575 labeled windows. We compared climatology, calibrated persistence, last-MAP-only boosting, and direct and residual quantile boosting, with and without additional MAP-history features. Patient-weighted pinball loss and subject-bootstrap intervals evaluated forecasting. Validation selected alert thresholds before a hash-recorded test evaluation.
Results: In the test split, the prespecified residual-versus-persistence comparison at the 90th percentile yielded losses of 2.256 and 2.900 mmHg-min, respectively (difference -0.644; 95% interval -0.814 to -0.487). Direct prediction achieved 2.196, and direct prediction with additional MAP features achieved 2.193. Episode-warning results were sensitive to the alert rule and operating threshold.
Conclusions: This retrospective benchmark separates burden-forecast skill from warning-policy performance. Findings support further study of direct burden estimation; they do not establish patient benefit, prospective reliability or transportability beyond the source hospital.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org