Deep Learning–Assisted Respiratory Risk Prediction and Sedation Safety Evaluation in Intravenous Anesthesia with Novel Endoscopic Nasal Mask Support
Keywords:
deep learning, respiratory risk prediction, sedation safety, intravenous anesthesia, endoscopic nasal mask, clinical AI deployment, governanceAbstract
The administration of intravenous anesthesia for endoscopic procedures has traditionally relied on spontaneous breathing, yet the risk of respiratory depression remains a critical safety concern. The introduction of a novel endoscopic nasal mask designed to preserve spontaneous ventilation while accommodating endoscopic instruments has opened new possibilities for sedation management. However, the dynamic and patient-specific nature of respiratory risk during sedation requires advanced predictive capabilities that conventional monitoring alone cannot provide. This paper presents a system-level investigation into the integration of deep learning models for real-time respiratory risk prediction within the clinical workflow of intravenous anesthesia supported by a novel endoscopic nasal mask. We examine the architectural trade-offs between model complexity and inference latency, the data governance frameworks necessary for training on multi-institutional physiological signals, and the deployment sustainability of such predictive systems across varied clinical environments. Drawing on a single-blind, randomized, positive-device parallel controlled clinical study that evaluated the safety and efficacy of the novel nasal mask, we analyze how deep learning-assisted risk stratification can augment, rather than replace, clinical judgment. We further discuss the fairness implications of training data imbalance, the regulatory challenges of continuous learning systems in medical devices, and the infrastructural requirements for real-time alarm integration. Cross-domain comparisons with other AI-assisted monitoring domains, such as intensive care unit early warning scores and automated external defibrillator decision support, illuminate the unique constraints and opportunities in the sedation setting. The paper concludes with a forward-looking perspective on the evolution of adaptive sedation systems, emphasizing the need for robust validation, transparent model governance, and equitable access to advanced respiratory safety technology.
References
1. Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., & Courville, A. (2016). Deep learning. MIT Press.
2. Esteva, A., Kuprel, B., Novoa, R. A., Ko, J., Swetter, S. M., Blau, H. M., & Thrun, S. (2017). Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks. Nature, 542(7639), 115–118.
3. Topol, E. J. (2019). High-performance medicine: The convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nature Medicine, 25(1), 44–56.
4. Lundberg, S. M., & Lee, S. I. (2017). A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (pp. 4765–4774).
5. 金子,王孟影,马海月 & 余斌.(2024).新型内镜鼻面罩在保留呼吸的静脉麻醉中有效性和安全性——单盲、随机、阳性器械平行对照临床研究.同济大学学报(医学版),45(05),727-734.
6. Shortreed, S. M., & Moodie, E. E. M. (2022). Causal inference in the presence of interference: A review. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 9, 375–400.
7. Böttger, S., & Schmitz, A. (2020). Artificial intelligence in anesthesia: A systematic review. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 131(4), 1060–1072.
8. Kendall, A., & Gal, Y. (2017). What uncertainties do we need in Bayesian deep learning for computer vision? In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (pp. 5574–5584).
9. Li, T., Sahu, A. K., Talwalkar, A., & Smith, V. (2020). Federated learning: Challenges, methods, and future directions. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 37(3), 50–60.
10. Rajkomar, A., Dean, J., & Kohane, I. (2019). Machine learning in medicine. New England Journal of Medicine, 380(14), 1347–1358.
11. Lu, J., Liu, A., Dong, F., Gu, F., Gama, J., & Zhang, G. (2018). Learning under concept drift: A review. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 31(12), 2346–2363.
12. 吴健 & 金子.(2025).肩胛上神经联合竖脊肌平面阻滞与臂丛联合胸椎旁阻滞对肩胛骨骨折患者镇痛效果的比较.麻醉安全与质控,7(02),108-112.
13. Cabitza, F., Rasoini, R., & Gensini, G. F. (2017). Unintended consequences of machine learning in medicine. JAMA, 318(6), 517–518.
14. Sendak, M. P., Ratliff, W., & Saripalli, S. (2020). Real-world integration of a sepsis deep learning technology into routine clinical care: A feasibility study. npj Digital Medicine, 3(1), 107.
15. Yeh, S. T., & Schatz, B. R. (2018). Evaluating the clinical impact of clinical decision support systems: A conceptual framework. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 25(11), 1532–1538.
16. Challen, R., Denny, J., & Pitt, M. (2019). Artificial intelligence, bias and clinical safety. BMJ Quality & Safety, 28(3), 231–237.
17. Char, D. S., Shah, N. H., & Magnus, D. (2018). Implementing machine learning in health care—Addressing ethical challenges. New England Journal of Medicine, 378(11), 981–983.
18. Vodrahalli, K., Chen, J., & Zou, J. (2021). How to trust AI: A survey of methods for evaluating trustworthiness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.08420.
19. Bates, D. W., & Singh, H. (2018). Two decades since To Err Is Human: An assessment of progress and emerging priorities in patient safety. Health Affairs, 37(11), 1736–1743.
20. Sutton, R. T., Pincock, D., & Baumgart, D. C. (2020). An overview of clinical decision support systems: Benefits, risks, and strategies for success. npj Digital Medicine, 3(1), 17.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Computer Science and Engineering Transactions
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
