Exploration of deep learning-driven methods for monitoring abnormal vital signs in critical care patients


Abstract

The real-time recognition and interpretation of irregular physiological signals is a critical challenge in the development of intelligent healthcare systems, particularly within the domain of temporal health informatics where accurate analysis of time series data is essential. Traditional approaches often rely on static threshold-based methods, which fail to account for the temporal and inter-variable dependencies inherent in critical care data, thereby limiting their scalability and reliability in high-stakes clinical environments. To address these shortcomings, this study introduces a deep learning framework that integrates frequency-aware signal processing with context-driven attention mechanisms to model patient-specific abnormality patterns. Central to this framework is the ViSpecFormer architecture, a frequency-enhanced transformer model that leverages multiscale spectral filtering and temporal self-attention to capture both transient and persistent trends across multivariate signals. Additionally, the ClinConDec strategy dynamically adjusts abnormality thresholds based on clinical context, incorporating interpretable rule conditioning and episodic memory retrieval for transparent decision-making. Experimental evaluations on ICU datasets demonstrate that the proposed method outperforms conventional signal decomposition and autoregressive models in terms of accuracy and interpretability, particularly in scenarios characterized by heterogeneous clinical conditions and sparse observations. These findings highlight the potential of this approach to advance adaptive, reliable, and explainable physiological monitoring systems, contributing to the broader fields of human-centered computing, data-driven signal analysis, and interpretable machine learning.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].