JMIR Medical Informatics最新文献

Background: Individuals from minoritized racial and ethnic backgrounds experience pernicious and pervasive health disparities that have emerged, in part, from clinician bias.

Objective: We used a natural language processing approach to examine whether linguistic markers in electronic health record (EHR) notes differ based on the race and ethnicity of the patient. To validate this methodological approach, we also assessed the extent to which clinicians perceive linguistic markers to be indicative of bias.

Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we extracted EHR notes for patients who were aged 18 years or older; had more than 5 years of diabetes diagnosis codes; and received care between 2006 and 2014 from family physicians, general internists, or endocrinologists practicing in an urban, academic network of clinics. The race and ethnicity of patients were defined as White non-Hispanic, Black non-Hispanic, or Hispanic or Latino. We hypothesized that Sentiment Analysis and Social Cognition Engine (SEANCE) components (ie, negative adjectives, positive adjectives, joy words, fear and disgust words, politics words, respect words, trust verbs, and well-being words) and mean word count would be indicators of bias if racial differences emerged. We performed linear mixed effects analyses to examine the relationship between the outcomes of interest (the SEANCE components and word count) and patient race and ethnicity, controlling for patient age. To validate this approach, we asked clinicians to indicate the extent to which they thought variation in the use of SEANCE language domains for different racial and ethnic groups was reflective of bias in EHR notes.

Results: We examined EHR notes (n=12,905) of Black non-Hispanic, White non-Hispanic, and Hispanic or Latino patients (n=1562), who were seen by 281 physicians. A total of 27 clinicians participated in the validation study. In terms of bias, participants rated negative adjectives as 8.63 (SD 2.06), fear and disgust words as 8.11 (SD 2.15), and positive adjectives as 7.93 (SD 2.46) on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being extremely indicative of bias. Notes for Black non-Hispanic patients contained significantly more negative adjectives (coefficient 0.07, SE 0.02) and significantly more fear and disgust words (coefficient 0.007, SE 0.002) than those for White non-Hispanic patients. The notes for Hispanic or Latino patients included significantly fewer positive adjectives (coefficient -0.02, SE 0.007), trust verbs (coefficient -0.009, SE 0.004), and joy words (coefficient -0.03, SE 0.01) than those for White non-Hispanic patients.

Conclusions: This approach may enable physicians and researchers to identify and mitigate bias in medical interactions, with the goal of reducing health disparities stemming from bias.

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI), more specifically large language models (LLMs), holds significant potential in revolutionizing emergency care delivery by optimizing clinical workflows and enhancing the quality of decision-making. Although enthusiasm for integrating LLMs into emergency medicine (EM) is growing, the existing literature is characterized by a disparate collection of individual studies, conceptual analyses, and preliminary implementations. Given these complexities and gaps in understanding, a cohesive framework is needed to comprehend the existing body of knowledge on the application of LLMs in EM.

Objective: Given the absence of a comprehensive framework for exploring the roles of LLMs in EM, this scoping review aims to systematically map the existing literature on LLMs' potential applications within EM and identify directions for future research. Addressing this gap will allow for informed advancements in the field.

Methods: Using PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) criteria, we searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for papers published between January 2018 and August 2023 that discussed LLMs' use in EM. We excluded other forms of AI. A total of 1994 unique titles and abstracts were screened, and each full-text paper was independently reviewed by 2 authors. Data were abstracted independently, and 5 authors performed a collaborative quantitative and qualitative synthesis of the data.

Results: A total of 43 papers were included. Studies were predominantly from 2022 to 2023 and conducted in the United States and China. We uncovered four major themes: (1) clinical decision-making and support was highlighted as a pivotal area, with LLMs playing a substantial role in enhancing patient care, notably through their application in real-time triage, allowing early recognition of patient urgency; (2) efficiency, workflow, and information management demonstrated the capacity of LLMs to significantly boost operational efficiency, particularly through the automation of patient record synthesis, which could reduce administrative burden and enhance patient-centric care; (3) risks, ethics, and transparency were identified as areas of concern, especially regarding the reliability of LLMs' outputs, and specific studies highlighted the challenges of ensuring unbiased decision-making amidst potentially flawed training data sets, stressing the importance of thorough validation and ethical oversight; and (4) education and communication possibilities included LLMs' capacity to enrich medical training, such as through using simulated patient interactions that enhance communication skills.

Conclusions: LLMs have the potential to fundamentally transform EM, enhancing clinical decision-making, optimizing workflows, and improving patient outc

Background: Numerous pressure injury prediction models have been developed using electronic health record data, yet hospital-acquired pressure injuries (HAPIs) are increasing, which demonstrates the critical challenge of implementing these models in routine care.

Objective: To help bridge the gap between development and implementation, we sought to create a model that was feasible, broadly applicable, dynamic, actionable, and rigorously validated and then compare its performance to usual care (ie, the Braden scale).

Methods: We extracted electronic health record data from 197,991 adult hospital admissions with 51 candidate features. For risk prediction and feature selection, we used logistic regression with a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) approach. To compare the model with usual care, we used the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), Brier score, slope, intercept, and integrated calibration index. The model was validated using a temporally staggered cohort.

Results: A total of 5458 HAPIs were identified between January 2018 and July 2022. We determined 22 features were necessary to achieve a parsimonious and highly accurate model. The top 5 features included tracheostomy, edema, central line, first albumin measure, and age. Our model achieved higher discrimination than the Braden scale (AUC 0.897, 95% CI 0.893-0.901 vs AUC 0.798, 95% CI 0.791-0.803).

Conclusions: We developed and validated an accurate prediction model for HAPIs that surpassed the standard-of-care risk assessment and fulfilled necessary elements for implementation. Future work includes a pragmatic randomized trial to assess whether our model improves patient outcomes.

Background: Synthetic patient data (SPD) generation for survival analysis in oncology trials holds significant potential for accelerating clinical development. Various machine learning methods, including classification and regression trees (CART), random forest (RF), Bayesian network (BN), and CTGAN, have been employed for this purpose, but their performance in reflecting actual patient survival data remains under investigation.

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the most suitable SPD generation method for oncology trials, specifically focusing on both progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), which are the primary evaluation endpoints in oncology trials. To achieve this goal, we conducted a comparative simulation of 4 generation methods: CART, RF, BN, and the CTGAN, and the performance of each method was evaluated.

Methods: Using multiple clinical trial datasets, 1000 datasets were generated by using each method for each clinical trial dataset and evaluated as follows: 1) median survival time (MST) of PFS and OS, 2) hazard ratio distance (HRD), which indicates the similarity between the actual survival function and a synthetic survival function, and 3) visual analysis of Kaplan‒Meier (KM) plots. Each method's ability to mimic the statistical properties of real patient data was evaluated from these multiple angles.

Results: In most simulation cases, CART demonstrated the high percentages of MSTs of synthetic data falling within the range of 95% confidence interval (CI) of the MST of actual data. These percentages ranged from 88.8% to 98.0% for PFS and from 60.8% to 96.1% for OS. In the evaluation of HRD, CART demonstrated that HRD values were concentrated at approximately 0.9. Conversely, for the other methods, no consistent trend was observed for either PFS or OS. The reason why CART demonstrated better similarity than RF was that CART caused overfitting and RF, which is a kind of ensemble learning, prevented it. In SPD generation, the statistical properties close to the actual data should be the focus, not a well-generalized prediction model. Both the BN and CTGAN methods cannot accurately reflect the statistical properties of the actual data because small datasets are not suitable.

Conclusions: As a method for generating SPD for survival data from small datasets, such as clinical trial data, CART demonstrated to be the most effective method compared to RF, BN, and CTGAN. Additionally, it is possible to improve CART-based generation methods by incorporating feature engineering and other methods in future work.