RESUMO
As implementation of artificial intelligence grows more prevalent in perioperative medicine, a clinician's ability to distinguish differentiating aspects of these algorithms is critical. There are currently numerous marketing and technical terms to describe these algorithms with little standardization. Additionally, the need to communicate with algorithm developers is paramount to actualize effective and practical implementation. Of particular interest in these discussions is the extent to which the output or predictions of algorithms and tools are understandable by medical practitioners. This work proposes a simple nomenclature that is intelligible to both clinicians and developers for quickly describing the interpretability of model results. There are three high-level categories: transparent, translucent, and opaque. To demonstrate the applicability and utility of this terminology, these terms were applied to the artificial intelligence and machine-learning-based products that have gained Food and Drug Administration approval. During this review and categorization process, 22 algorithms were found with perioperative utility (in a database of 70 total algorithms), and 12 of these had publicly available citations. The primary aim of this work is to establish a common nomenclature that will expedite and simplify descriptions of algorithm requirements from clinicians to developers and explanations of appropriate model use and limitations from developers to clinicians.
RESUMO
Accurate assessment of intravascular volume status in critically ill patients remains a very challenging task. Recent data have shown adverse outcomes in critically ill patients with either inadequate or overaggressive fluid therapy. Understanding the tools and techniques available for accurate volume assessment is imperative. This article discusses the concept of fluid responsiveness and reviews methods for assessing fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients.