Machine learning predicts blood loss in pediatric patients, indicating improved accuracy over traditional methods.
Background Accurate intraoperative blood loss estimation is crucial, particularly for pediatric and adolescent patients. Traditional methods (visual, gravimetric, formula-based) are often imprecise and unreliable, highlighting a need for objective and efficient approaches. Methods This study proposes a novel machine learning (ML) approach to predict blood loss from surgical sponges via a pixel-counting rate system. We utilized image preprocessing, including edge detection, and evaluated various ML algorithms with hyperparameter tuning. Details include deployment on commodity smartphones, a deterministic preprocessing pipeline, and app-level measures to mitigate folding, lighting, and motion blur. Model accuracy was assessed using RMSE and R 2 . A lightweight CNN baseline on raw images was also evaluated, positioning our system as a low-cost, mobile alternative to proprietary solutions. Results The ML-based method significantly reduced reliance on subjective visual estimation. Gradient Boosting (GB) and Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) achieved a minimum RMSE of 0.91 and a maximum R 2 of 0.93, outperforming traditional methods. The system demonstrates strong potential for integration into mobile phone applications for practical clinical use. Conclusions Our machine learning-based pixel-counting approach offers a more accurate and efficient alternative for intraoperative blood loss estimation. Future research will expand the dataset, refine ML algorithms, and adapt the system for specialized equipment. While a CNN baseline approached GB performance, GB remained superior at the current data scale. A prospective paired-data plan is outlined for future benchmarking. Clinically, the per-sponge RMSE (∼0.9 cc) aligns with an acceptable error margin (0.5-1.0 cc) for decision support, noting that pediatric transfusion decisions rely on cumulative loss and multimodal monitoring.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
KARA et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: