Enhancing Patient Understanding of Laboratory Test Results: Systematic Review of Presentation Formats and Their Impact on Perception, Decision, Action, and Memory.

BACKGROUND: Direct access of patients to their web-based patient portal, including laboratory test results, has become increasingly common. Numeric laboratory results can be challenging to interpret for patients, which may lead to anxiety, confusion, and unnecessary doctor consultations. Laboratory results can be presented in different formats, but there is limited evidence regarding how these presentation formats impact patients' processing of the information. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to synthesize the evidence on effective formats for presenting numeric laboratory test results with a focus on outcomes related to patients' information processing, including affective perception, perceived magnitude, cognitive perception, perception of communication, decision, action, and memory. METHODS: The search was conducted in 3 databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase) from inception until May 31, 2023. We included quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods articles describing or comparing formats for presenting diagnostic laboratory test results to patients. Two reviewers independently extracted and synthesized the characteristics of the articles and presentation formats used. The quality of the included articles was assessed by 2 independent reviewers using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies were included, which were heterogeneous in terms of study design and primary outcomes used. The quality of the articles ranged from poor to excellent. Most studies (n=16, 89%) used mock test results. The most frequently used presentation formats were numerical values with reference ranges (n=12), horizontal line bars with colored blocks (n=12), or a combination of horizontal line bars with numerical values (n=8). All studies examined perception as an outcome, while action and memory were studied in 1 and 3 articles, respectively. In general, participants' satisfaction and usability were the highest when test results were presented using horizontal line bars with colored blocks. Adding reference ranges or personalized information (eg, goal ranges) further increased participants' perception. Additionally, horizontal line bars significantly decreased participants' tendency to search for information or to contact their physician, compared with numerical values with reference ranges. CONCLUSIONS: In this review, we synthesized available evidence on effective presentation formats for laboratory test results. The use of horizontal line bars with reference ranges or personalized goal ranges increased participants' cognitive perception and perception of communication while decreasing participants' tendency to contact their physicians. Action and memory were less frequently studied, so no conclusion could be drawn about a single preferred format regarding these outcomes. Therefore, the use of horizontal line bars with reference ranges or personalized goal ranges is recommended to enhance patients' information processing of laboratory test results. Further research should focus on real-life settings and diverse presentation formats in combination with outcomes related to patients' information processing.

Deep embedded clustering generalisability and adaptation for integrating mixed datatypes: two critical care cohorts.

We validated a Deep Embedded Clustering (DEC) model and its adaptation for integrating mixed datatypes (in this study, numerical and categorical variables). Deep Embedded Clustering (DEC) is a promising technique capable of managing extensive sets of variables and non-linear relationships. Nevertheless, DEC cannot adequately handle mixed datatypes. Therefore, we adapted DEC by replacing the autoencoder with an X-shaped variational autoencoder (XVAE) and optimising hyperparameters for cluster stability. We call this model "X-DEC". We compared DEC and X-DEC by reproducing a previous study that used DEC to identify clusters in a population of intensive care patients. We assessed internal validity based on cluster stability on the development dataset. Since generalisability of clustering models has insufficiently been validated on external populations, we assessed external validity by investigating cluster generalisability onto an external validation dataset. We concluded that both DEC and X-DEC resulted in clinically recognisable and generalisable clusters, but X-DEC produced much more stable clusters.

Machine learning for risk stratification in the emergency department (MARS-ED) study protocol for a randomized controlled pilot trial on the implementation of a prediction model based on machine learning technology predicting 31-day mortality in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Many prediction models have been developed to help identify emergency department (ED) patients at high risk of poor outcome. However, these models often underperform in clinical practice and their actual clinical impact has hardly ever been evaluated. We aim to perform a clinical trial to investigate the clinical impact of a prediction model based on machine learning (ML) technology. METHODS: The study is a prospective, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority pilot clinical trial. We will investigate the clinical impact of a prediction model based on ML technology, the RISKINDEX, which has been developed to predict the risk of 31-day mortality based on the results of laboratory tests and demographic characteristics. In previous studies, the RISKINDEX was shown to outperform internal medicine specialists and to have high discriminatory performance. Adults patients (18 years or older) will be recruited in the ED. All participants will be randomly assigned to the control group or the intervention group in a 1:1 ratio. Participants in the control group will receive care as usual in which the study team asks the attending physicians questions about their clinical intuition. Participants in the intervention group will also receive care as usual, but in addition to asking the clinical impression questions, the study team presents the RISKINDEX to the attending physician in order to assess the extent to which clinical treatment is influenced by the results. DISCUSSION: This pilot clinical trial investigates the clinical impact and implementation of an ML based prediction model in the ED. By assessing the clinical impact and prognostic accuracy of the RISKINDEX, this study aims to contribute valuable insights to optimize patient care and inform future research in the field of ML based clinical prediction models. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05497830. Machine Learning for Risk Stratification in the Emergency Department (MARS-ED). Registered on August 11, 2022. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05497830 .

Lower Limits for Reporting High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin Assays and Impact of Analytical Performance on Patient Misclassification.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac troponin measurements are indispensable for the diagnosis of myocardial infarction and provide useful information for long-term risk prediction of cardiovascular disease. Accelerated diagnostic pathways prevent unnecessary hospital admission, but require reporting cardiac troponin concentrations at low concentrations that are sometimes below the limit of quantification. Whether analytical imprecision at these concentrations contributes to misclassification of patients is debated. CONTENT: The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry Committee on Clinical Application of Cardiac Bio-Markers (IFCC C-CB) provides evidence-based educational statements on analytical and clinical aspects of cardiac biomarkers. This mini-review discusses how the reporting of low concentrations of cardiac troponins impacts on whether or not assays are classified as high-sensitivity and how analytical performance at low concentrations influences the utility of troponins in accelerated diagnostic pathways. Practical suggestions are made for laboratories regarding analytical quality assessment of cardiac troponin results at low cutoffs, with a particular focus on accelerated diagnostic pathways. The review also discusses how future use of cardiac troponins for long-term prediction or management of cardiovascular disease may require improvements in analytical quality. SUMMARY: Clinical guidelines recommend using cardiac troponin concentrations as low as the limit of detection of the assay to guide patient care. Laboratories, manufacturers, researchers, and external quality assessment providers should extend analytical performance monitoring of cardiac troponin assays to include the concentration ranges applicable in these pathways.

Explainable Machine Learning Models for Rapid Risk Stratification in the Emergency Department: A Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) is important for appropriate triage. Diagnostic laboratory tests are an essential part of the workup and risk stratification of these patients. Using machine learning, the prognostic power and clinical value of these tests can be amplified greatly. In this study, we applied machine learning to develop an accurate and explainable clinical decision support tool model that predicts the likelihood of 31-day mortality in ED patients (the RISKINDEX). This tool was developed and evaluated in four Dutch hospitals. METHODS: Machine learning models included patient characteristics and available laboratory data collected within the first 2 h after ED presentation, and were trained using 5 years of data from consecutive ED patients from the Maastricht University Medical Center (Maastricht), Meander Medical Center (Amersfoort), and Zuyderland Medical Center (Sittard and Heerlen). A sixth year of data was used to evaluate the models using area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUROC) and calibration curves. The Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) algorithm was used to obtain explainable machine learning models. RESULTS: The present study included 266 327 patients with 7.1 million laboratory results available. Models show high diagnostic performance with AUROCs of 0.94, 0.98, 0.88, and 0.90 for Maastricht, Amersfoort, Sittard and Heerlen, respectively. The SHAP algorithm was utilized to visualize patient characteristics and laboratory data patterns that underlie individual RISKINDEX predictions. CONCLUSIONS: Our clinical decision support tool has excellent diagnostic performance in predicting 31-day mortality in ED patients. Follow-up studies will assess whether implementation of these algorithms can improve clinically relevant end points.