Bayesian Neural Network in Action

The research is now well into the second phase – analysis of the historic data set.

In the first phase the statisticians and clinicians analyzed the historic data set looking for measures which could be used as standard indicators of adverse events.  This was a critical step in the project.  Only with common indicators across all cases, and agreement with the clinicians as to the reliability of those indicators in medical terms could the team proceed the the current phase.

The original project plan anticipated phase one would identify linear combinations of measures.  These combinations would guide the second phase analysis as to the time windows, prior to the event, appropriate for detailed analysis by the BANN.

Unfortunately things turned out to be much more complex.  The onset of the adverse event wasn’t indicated  in the linear combinations of any of the measures.  The idea of establishing a fixed time window for further analysis, shortening the duration of the second phase turned out to be false hope.

Now the second phase needs to compare relationships between up to eight variables through the smallest possible time windows prior to the event, and trend each of those relationships through one hour or more.  And do this across 200+ cases.

This work is now underway.  In order to get the computers processing these very complex queries in a matter of hours rather than weeks our computer scientists needed to add their skills to those of the clinicians and mathematicians.

Whilst this particular research is focused on finding indicators of upcoming hypotension, the clinicians are expecting a number of additional results which will help guide the care of TBI patients.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.