Validity of Clinical Severity Scores for Respiratory Syncytial Virus: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a widespread respiratory pathogen, and RSV-related acute lower respiratory tract infections are the most common cause of respiratory hospitalization in children <2 years of age. Over the last 2 decades, a number of severity scores have been proposed to quantify disease severity for RSV in children, yet there remains no overall consensus on the most clinically useful score. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of English-language publications in peer-reviewed journals published since January 2000 assessing the validity of severity scores for children (≤24 months of age) with RSV and/or bronchiolitis, and identified the most promising scores. For included articles, (1) validity data were extracted, (2) quality of reporting was assessed using the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis checklist (TRIPOD), and (3) quality was assessed using the Prediction Model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). To guide the assessment of the validity data, standardized cutoffs were employed, and an explicit definition of what we required to determine a score was sufficiently validated. RESULTS: Our searches identified 8541 results, of which 1779 were excluded as duplicates. After title and abstract screening, 6670 references were excluded. Following full-text screening and snowballing, 32 articles, including 31 scores, were included. The most frequently assessed scores were the modified Tal score and the Wang Bronchiolitis Severity Score; none of the scores were found to be sufficiently validated according to our definition. The reporting and/or design of all the included studies was poor. The best validated score was the Bronchiolitis Score of Sant Joan de Déu, and a number of other promising scores were identified. CONCLUSIONS: No scores were found to be sufficiently validated. Further work is warranted to validate the existing scores, ideally in much larger datasets.

External Validation of the Discriminative Validity of the ReSVinet Score and Development of Simplified ReSVinet Scores in Secondary Care.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on how to best quantify disease severity in infants with respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and/or bronchiolitis; this lack of a sufficiently validated score complicates the provision of clinical care and, the evaluation of trials of therapeutics and vaccines. The ReSVinet score appears to be one of the most promising; however, it is too time consuming to be incorporated into routine clinical care. We aimed to develop and externally validate simplified versions of this score. METHODS: Data from a multinational (the Netherlands, Spain, and United Kingdom) multicenter case-control study of infants with RSV were used to develop simplified versions of the ReSVinet score by conducting a grid search to determine the best combination of equally weighted parameters to maximize for the discriminative ability (measured by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC]) across a range of outcomes (hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, ventilation requirement). Subsequently discriminative validity of the score for a range of secondary care outcomes was externally validated by secondary analysis of datasets from Rwanda and Colombia. RESULTS: Three candidate simplified scores were identified using the development dataset; they were excellent (AUROC >0.9) at discriminating for a range of outcomes, and their performance was not significantly different from the original ReSVinet score despite having fewer parameters. In the external validation datasets, the simplified scores were moderate to excellent (AUROC, 0.7-1) across a range of outcomes. In all outcomes, except in a single dataset for predicting admission to the high-dependency unit, they performed at least as well as the original ReSVinet score. CONCLUSIONS: The candidate simplified scores developed require further external validation in larger datasets, ideally from resource-limited settings before any recommendation regarding their use.

A fuzzy-enhanced deep learning approach for early detection of Covid-19 pneumonia from portable chest X-ray images.

The Covid-19 pandemic is the defining global health crisis of our time. Chest X-Rays (CXR) have been an important imaging modality for assisting in the diagnosis and management of hospitalised Covid-19 patients. However, their interpretation is time intensive for radiologists. Accurate computer aided systems can facilitate early diagnosis of Covid-19 and effective triaging. In this paper, we propose a fuzzy logic based deep learning (DL) approach to differentiate between CXR images of patients with Covid-19 pneumonia and with interstitial pneumonias not related to Covid-19. The developed model here, referred to as CovNNet, is used to extract some relevant features from CXR images, combined with fuzzy images generated by a fuzzy edge detection algorithm. Experimental results show that using a combination of CXR and fuzzy features, within a deep learning approach by developing a deep network inputed to a Multilayer Perceptron (MLP), results in a higher classification performance (accuracy rate up to 81%), compared to benchmark deep learning approaches. The approach has been validated through additional datasets which are continously generated due to the spread of the virus and would help triage patients in acute settings. A permutation analysis is carried out, and a simple occlusion methodology for explaining decisions is also proposed. The proposed pipeline can be easily embedded into present clinical decision support systems.

Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Analysis of Public Attitudes on Facebook and Twitter Toward COVID-19 Vaccines in the United Kingdom and the United States: Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Global efforts toward the development and deployment of a vaccine for COVID-19 are rapidly advancing. To achieve herd immunity, widespread administration of vaccines is required, which necessitates significant cooperation from the general public. As such, it is crucial that governments and public health agencies understand public sentiments toward vaccines, which can help guide educational campaigns and other targeted policy interventions. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop and apply an artificial intelligence-based approach to analyze public sentiments on social media in the United Kingdom and the United States toward COVID-19 vaccines to better understand the public attitude and concerns regarding COVID-19 vaccines. METHODS: Over 300,000 social media posts related to COVID-19 vaccines were extracted, including 23,571 Facebook posts from the United Kingdom and 144,864 from the United States, along with 40,268 tweets from the United Kingdom and 98,385 from the United States from March 1 to November 22, 2020. We used natural language processing and deep learning-based techniques to predict average sentiments, sentiment trends, and topics of discussion. These factors were analyzed longitudinally and geospatially, and manual reading of randomly selected posts on points of interest helped identify underlying themes and validated insights from the analysis. RESULTS: Overall averaged positive, negative, and neutral sentiments were at 58%, 22%, and 17% in the United Kingdom, compared to 56%, 24%, and 18% in the United States, respectively. Public optimism over vaccine development, effectiveness, and trials as well as concerns over their safety, economic viability, and corporation control were identified. We compared our findings to those of nationwide surveys in both countries and found them to correlate broadly. CONCLUSIONS: Artificial intelligence-enabled social media analysis should be considered for adoption by institutions and governments alongside surveys and other conventional methods of assessing public attitude. Such analyses could enable real-time assessment, at scale, of public confidence and trust in COVID-19 vaccines, help address the concerns of vaccine sceptics, and help develop more effective policies and communication strategies to maximize uptake.

Understanding Public Perceptions of COVID-19 Contact Tracing Apps: Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Social Media Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in late 2019 and its subsequent spread worldwide continues to be a global health crisis. Many governments consider contact tracing of citizens through apps installed on mobile phones as a key mechanism to contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we sought to explore the suitability of artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled social media analyses using Facebook and Twitter to understand public perceptions of COVID-19 contact tracing apps in the United Kingdom. METHODS: We extracted and analyzed over 10,000 relevant social media posts across an 8-month period, from March 1 to October 31, 2020. We used an initial filter with COVID-19-related keywords, which were predefined as part of an open Twitter-based COVID-19 dataset. We then applied a second filter using contract tracing app-related keywords and a geographical filter. We developed and utilized a hybrid, rule-based ensemble model, combining state-of-the-art lexicon rule-based and deep learning-based approaches. RESULTS: Overall, we observed 76% positive and 12% negative sentiments, with the majority of negative sentiments reported in the North of England. These sentiments varied over time, likely influenced by ongoing public debates around implementing app-based contact tracing by using a centralized model where data would be shared with the health service, compared with decentralized contact-tracing technology. CONCLUSIONS: Variations in sentiments corroborate with ongoing debates surrounding the information governance of health-related information. AI-enabled social media analysis of public attitudes in health care can help facilitate the implementation of effective public health campaigns.

Real-Time Artifacts Reduction during TMS-EEG Co-Registration: A Comprehensive Review on Technologies and Procedures.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) excites neurons in the cortex, and neural activity can be simultaneously recorded using electroencephalography (EEG). However, TMS-evoked EEG potentials (TEPs) do not only reflect transcranial neural stimulation as they can be contaminated by artifacts. Over the last two decades, significant developments in EEG amplifiers, TMS-compatible technology, customized hardware and open source software have enabled researchers to develop approaches which can substantially reduce TMS-induced artifacts. In TMS-EEG experiments, various physiological and external occurrences have been identified and attempts have been made to minimize or remove them using online techniques. Despite these advances, technological issues and methodological constraints prevent straightforward recordings of early TEPs components. To the best of our knowledge, there is no review on both TMS-EEG artifacts and EEG technologies in the literature to-date. Our survey aims to provide an overview of research studies in this field over the last 40 years. We review TMS-EEG artifacts, their sources and their waveforms and present the state-of-the-art in EEG technologies and front-end characteristics. We also propose a synchronization toolbox for TMS-EEG laboratories. We then review subject preparation frameworks and online artifacts reduction maneuvers for improving data acquisition and conclude by outlining open challenges and future research directions in the field.

Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Social Media Analysis for Pharmacovigilance of COVID-19 Vaccinations in the United Kingdom: Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: The rollout of vaccines for COVID-19 in the United Kingdom started in December 2020. Uptake has been high, and there has been a subsequent reduction in infections, hospitalizations, and deaths among vaccinated individuals. However, vaccine hesitancy remains a concern, in particular relating to adverse effects following immunization (AEFIs). Social media analysis has the potential to inform policy makers about AEFIs being discussed by the public as well as public attitudes toward the national immunization campaign. OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the frequency and nature of AEFI-related mentions on social media in the United Kingdom and to provide insights on public sentiments toward COVID-19 vaccines. METHODS: We extracted and analyzed over 121,406 relevant Twitter and Facebook posts, from December 8, 2020, to April 30, 2021. These were thematically filtered using a 2-step approach, initially using COVID-19-related keywords and then using vaccine- and manufacturer-related keywords. We identified AEFI-related keywords and modeled their word frequency to monitor their trends over 2-week periods. We also adapted and utilized our recently developed hybrid ensemble model, which combines state-of-the-art lexicon rule-based and deep learning-based approaches, to analyze sentiment trends relating to the main vaccines available in the United Kingdom. RESULTS: Our COVID-19 AEFI search strategy identified 46,762 unique Facebook posts by 14,346 users and 74,644 tweets (excluding retweets) by 36,446 users over the 4-month period. We identified an increasing trend in the number of mentions for each AEFI on social media over the study period. The most frequent AEFI mentions were found to be symptoms related to appetite (n=79,132, 14%), allergy (n=53,924, 9%), injection site (n=56,152, 10%), and clots (n=43,907, 8%). We also found some rarely reported AEFIs such as Bell palsy (n=11,909, 2%) and Guillain-Barre syndrome (n=9576, 2%) being discussed as frequently as more well-known side effects like headache (n=10,641, 2%), fever (n=12,707, 2%), and diarrhea (n=16,559, 3%). Overall, we found public sentiment toward vaccines and their manufacturers to be largely positive (58%), with a near equal split between negative (22%) and neutral (19%) sentiments. The sentiment trend was relatively steady over time and had minor variations, likely based on political and regulatory announcements and debates. CONCLUSIONS: The most frequently discussed COVID-19 AEFIs on social media were found to be broadly consistent with those reported in the literature and by government pharmacovigilance. We also detected potential safety signals from our analysis that have been detected elsewhere and are currently being investigated. As such, we believe our findings support the use of social media analysis to provide a complementary data source to conventional knowledge sources being used for pharmacovigilance purposes.

Effectiveness of virtual and augmented reality for improving knowledge and skills in medical students: protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) technologies are increasingly being used in undergraduate medical education. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of VR and AR technologies for improving knowledge and skills in medical students. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using Best Evidence in Medical Education (BEME) collaboration guidelines, we will search MEDLINE (via PubMed), Education Resources Information Center, PsycINFO, Web of Knowledge, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for English-language records, from January 1990 to March 2021. Randomised trials that studied the use of VR or AR devices for teaching medical students will be included. Studies that assessed other healthcare professionals, or did not have a comparator group, will be excluded. The primary outcome measures relate to medical students' knowledge and clinical skills. Two reviewers will independently screen studies and assess eligibility based on our prespecified eligibility criteria, and then extract data from each eligible study using a modified BEME coding form. Any disagreements will be resolved by discussion or, if necessary, the involvement of a third reviewer. The BEME Quality Indicators checklist and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool will be used to assess the quality of the body of evidence. Where data are of sufficient homogeneity, a meta-analysis using a random-effects model will be conducted. Otherwise, a narrative synthesis approach will be taken and studies will be evaluated based on Kirkpatrick's levels of educational outcomes and the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review as no primary data are being collected. We will disseminate the findings of this review through scientific conferences and through publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Investigating the use of data-driven artificial intelligence in computerised decision support systems for health and social care: A systematic review.

There is growing interest in the potential of artificial intelligence to support decision-making in health and social care settings. There is, however, currently limited evidence of the effectiveness of these systems. The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of artificial intelligence-based computerised decision support systems in health and social care settings. We conducted a systematic literature review to identify relevant randomised controlled trials conducted between 2013 and 2018. We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, ASSIA, Emerald, Health Business Fulltext Elite, ProQuest Public Health, Social Care Online, and grey literature sources. Search terms were conceptualised into three groups: artificial intelligence-related terms, computerised decision support -related terms, and terms relating to health and social care. Terms within groups were combined using the Boolean operator OR, and groups were combined using the Boolean operator AND. Two reviewers independently screened studies against the eligibility criteria and two independent reviewers extracted data on eligible studies onto a customised sheet. We assessed the quality of studies through the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist for randomised controlled trials. We then conducted a narrative synthesis. We identified 68 hits of which five studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. These studies varied substantially in relation to quality, settings, outcomes, and technologies. None of the studies was conducted in social care settings, and three randomised controlled trials showed no difference in patient outcomes. Of these, one investigated the use of Bayesian triage algorithms on forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and health-related quality of life in lung transplant patients. Another investigated the effect of image pattern recognition on neonatal development outcomes in pregnant women, and another investigated the effect of the Kalman filter technique for warfarin dosing suggestions on time in therapeutic range. The remaining two randomised controlled trials, investigating computer vision and neural networks on medication adherence and the impact of learning algorithms on assessment time of patients with gestational diabetes, showed statistically significant and clinically important differences to the control groups receiving standard care. However, these studies tended to be of low quality lacking detailed descriptions of methods and only one study used a double-blind design. Although the evidence of effectiveness of data-driven artificial intelligence to support decision-making in health and social care settings is limited, this work provides important insights on how a meaningful evidence base in this emerging field needs to be developed going forward. It is unlikely that any single overall message surrounding effectiveness will emerge - rather effectiveness of interventions is likely to be context-specific and calls for inclusion of a range of study designs to investigate mechanisms of action.

National clinical practice guidelines for food allergy and anaphylaxis: an international assessment.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines are important tools to promote evidence-based clinical care, but not all countries have the capacity or infrastructure to develop these in-house. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology has recently developed guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis and management of food allergy and the management of anaphylaxis. In order to inform dissemination, adaptation and implementation plans, we sought to identify countries that have/do not have national guidelines for food allergy and anaphylaxis. METHODS: Two reviewers independently searched PubMed to identify countries with guidelines for food allergy and/or anaphylaxis from the inception of this database to December 2016. This was supplemented with a search of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's National Guideline Clearinghouse in order to identify any additional guidelines that may not have been reported in the peer-reviewed literature. Data were descriptively and narratively synthesized. RESULTS: Overall, 5/193 (3%) of countries had at least one guideline for food allergy or anaphylaxis. We found that one (1%) country had a national guideline for the prevention of food allergy, three (2%) countries had a guideline for the diagnosis of food allergy and three (2%) countries had a guideline for the management of food allergy. Three (2%) countries had an anaphylaxis guideline. CONCLUSIONS: This study concludes that the overwhelming majority of countries do not have any national clinical practice guidelines for food allergy or anaphylaxis.