Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 14, 2025

Evaluation of Capnography Sampling Line Compatibility and Accuracy when Used with a Portable Capnography Monitor
Published on: September 29, 2020
Beyond labels: determining the true type of blood gas samples in ICU patients through supervised machine learning
Johan Helleberg1,2, Anna Sundelin3,4, Johan Mårtensson3,4
1Perioperative Medicine and Intensive Care, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. johan.helleberg@ki.se.
Background:
In the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), data stored in patient data management systems (PDMS) is commonly used in clinical practice and research. Parameters from point-of-care arterial blood gas (BG) analysis are used in the diagnosis and definition of syndromes such as sepsis and ARDS, but manual entry of the blood source (arterial or venous) into the PDMS introduces the risk of mislabeling venous samples as arterial. Our study aimed to employ supervised machine learning to accurately identify blood gas samples as arterial or venous using PDMS data.
Methods:
A retrospective, single-center observational cohort study including all blood gases during 2018 from a Swedish, pediatric and adult general ICU. Chemical parameters from BG analysis and clinical parameters such as mean arterial pressure (MAP) and saturation (SpO2) were utilized as features. A specialist physician in Intensive Care manually determined the true class of each sample through comprehensive retrospective chart review. The samples were split into training, testing and holdout sets. Training was performed using cross-validation in the training set, with forward stepwise feature selection and Bayesian hyperparameter optimization, and accuracy was assessed using area under the precision recall curve (AUCPR) in the test set. The best model was compared to a multivariate logistic regression model (LR) in the holdout set.
Results:
Among 33,800 samples (30,753 arterial, 3,047 non-arterial) from 691 ICU admissions, 150 (0.44%) were erroneously marked. The best performing algorithm was extreme gradient boosting (XGboost) using 9 features, with an AUCPR of 0.9974 (95% CI 0.9961-0.9984), significantly better than the LR model (AUCPR = 0.9791, 95% CI 0.9651-0.9904).
Conclusion:
Supervised machine learning demonstrates efficacy in determining blood gas sample type from ICU patients. This approach shows promise for improving the accuracy of research and clinical applications relying on blood gas data.
Related Concept Videos
Blood Studies I: ABG and VBG
Arterial Blood Gas (ABG)
Arterial Blood Gas (ABG) studies are crucial for assessing the lungs' ability to supply oxygen and remove carbon dioxide, reflecting the patient's ventilation status. They also help understand the kidneys' capacity to...
Diagnosing Acidosis and Alkalosis
First, the pH level is assessed to determine whether the blood pH is normal (7.35–7.45), low (acidosis), or high (alkalosis).
Next, the PCO2 and...
Sampling Methods: Sample Types
Solid samples include a variety of substances, such as sediments from water bodies, soil, metals, and biological tissues. Two standard methods for extracting sediments from water bodies are grab sampling and piston coring. Grab sampling involves using a device to collect a discrete sediment sample from the bottom of a water body with minimal disturbance. Grab samples do not always represent the entire area due to...
Mechanical Ventilation I: Indication and Settings
Assessment of Diffusion and Perfusion
The Role of Diffusion in Respiration
Diffusion is the process by which molecules move from an area of higher concentration to an area of lower concentration. In the respiratory system, this...

