Computerized decision support is an effective approach to select memory clinic patients for amyloid-PET.

BACKGROUND: The use of amyloid-PET in dementia workup is upcoming. At the same time, amyloid-PET is costly and limitedly available. While the appropriate use criteria (AUC) aim for optimal use of amyloid-PET, their limited sensitivity hinders the translation to clinical practice. Therefore, there is a need for tools that guide selection of patients for whom amyloid-PET has the most clinical utility. We aimed to develop a computerized decision support approach to select patients for amyloid-PET. METHODS: We included 286 subjects (135 controls, 108 Alzheimer's disease dementia, 33 frontotemporal lobe dementia, and 10 vascular dementia) from the Amsterdam Dementia Cohort, with available neuropsychology, APOE, MRI and [18F]florbetaben amyloid-PET. In our computerized decision support approach, using supervised machine learning based on the DSI classifier, we first classified the subjects using only neuropsychology, APOE, and quantified MRI. Then, for subjects with uncertain classification (probability of correct class (PCC) < 0.75) we enriched classification by adding (hypothetical) amyloid positive (AD-like) and negative (normal) PET visual read results and assessed whether the diagnosis became more certain in at least one scenario (PPC≥0.75). If this was the case, the actual visual read result was used in the final classification. We compared the proportion of PET scans and patients diagnosed with sufficient certainty in the computerized approach with three scenarios: 1) without amyloid-PET, 2) amyloid-PET according to the AUC, and 3) amyloid-PET for all patients. RESULTS: The computerized approach advised PET in n = 60(21%) patients, leading to a diagnosis with sufficient certainty in n = 188(66%) patients. This approach was more efficient than the other three scenarios: 1) without amyloid-PET, diagnostic classification was obtained in n = 155(54%), 2) applying the AUC resulted in amyloid-PET in n = 113(40%) and diagnostic classification in n = 156(55%), and 3) performing amyloid-PET in all resulted in diagnostic classification in n = 154(54%). CONCLUSION: Our computerized data-driven approach selected 21% of memory clinic patients for amyloid-PET, without compromising diagnostic performance. Our work contributes to a cost-effective implementation and could support clinicians in making a balanced decision in ordering additional amyloid PET during the dementia workup.

Use of a digital tool to support the diagnostic process in memory clinics-a usability study.

BACKGROUND: Both memory clinic professionals and patients see value in digital tools, yet these hardly find their way to clinical practice. We explored the usability of a digital tool to support the diagnostic work-up in daily memory clinic practice. We evaluated four modules that integrate multi-modal patient data (1.cognitive test; cCOG, and 2. MRI quantification; cMRI) into useful diagnostic information for clinicians (3. cDSI) and understandable and personalized information for patients (4. patient report). METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study in five Dutch memory clinics. Fourteen clinicians (11 geriatric specialists/residents, two neurologists, one nurse practitioner) were invited to integrate the tool into routine care with 43 new memory clinic patients. We evaluated usability and user experiences through quantitative data from questionnaires (patients, care partners, clinicians), enriched with thematically analyzed qualitative data from interviews (clinicians). RESULTS: We observed wide variation in tool use among clinicians. Our core findings were that clinicians: 1) were mainly positive about the patient report, since it contributes to patient-centered and personalized communication. This was endorsed by patients and care partners, who indicated that the patient report was useful and understandable and helped them to better understand their diagnosis, 2) considered the tool acceptable in addition to their own clinical competence, 3) indicated that the usefulness of the tool depended on the patient population and purpose of the diagnostic process, 4) addressed facilitators (ease of use, practice makes perfect) and barriers (high workload, lack of experience, data unavailability). CONCLUSION: This multicenter usability study revealed a willingness to adopt a digital tool to support the diagnostic process in memory clinics. Clinicians, patients, and care partners appreciated the personalized diagnostic report. More attention to education and training of clinicians is needed to utilize the full functionality of the tool and foster implementation in actual daily practice. These findings provide an important step towards a lasting adoption of digital tools in memory clinic practice.