Importance: Disparities in pulse oximetry accuracy, disproportionately affecting patients of color, have been associated with serious clinical outcomes. Although many have called for pulse oximetry hardware replacement, the cost associated with this replacement is not known. Objective: To estimate the cost of replacing all pulse oximetry hardware throughout a hospital system. Design: Single-center survey, 2023. Setting: Single center. Participants: One academic medical center with three hospitals. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cost of fleet replacement as identified by current day prices for hardware. Results: New and used prices for 5,079/5,678 (89.5%) across three hospitals for pulse oximetry devices were found. The average equipment cost to replace pulse oximetry hardware is $15,704.12 per bed. Replacement and integration costs are estimated at $28.5-31.8 million for the entire medical system. Extrapolating these costs to 5,564 hospitals in the United States results in an estimated cost of $14.1 billion. Conclusions and Relevance: "Simply replacing" pulse oximetry hardware to address disparities may be neither simple, cheap, or timely. Solutions for addressing pulse oximetry accuracy disparities leveraging current technology may be necessary. Trial Registration: Pro00113724, exempt.
BACKGROUND: In light of recent retrospective studies revealing evidence of disparities in access to medical technology and of bias in measurements, this narrative review assesses digital determinants of health (DDoH) in both technologies and medical formulae that demonstrate either evidence of bias or suboptimal performance, identifies potential mechanisms behind such bias, and proposes potential methods or avenues that can guide future efforts to address these disparities. APPROACH: Mechanisms are broadly grouped into physical and biological biases (e.g., pulse oximetry, non-contact infrared thermometry [NCIT]), interaction of human factors and cultural practices (e.g., electroencephalography [EEG]), and interpretation bias (e.g, pulmonary function tests [PFT], optical coherence tomography [OCT], and Humphrey visual field [HVF] testing). This review scope specifically excludes technologies incorporating artificial intelligence and machine learning. For each technology, we identify both clinical and research recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Many of the DDoH mechanisms encountered in medical technologies and formulae result in lower accuracy or lower validity when applied to patients outside the initial scope of development or validation. Our clinical recommendations caution clinical users in completely trusting result validity and suggest correlating with other measurement modalities robust to the DDoH mechanism (e.g., arterial blood gas for pulse oximetry, core temperatures for NCIT). Our research recommendations suggest not only increasing diversity in development and validation, but also awareness in the modalities of diversity required (e.g., skin pigmentation for pulse oximetry but skin pigmentation and sex/hormonal variation for NCIT). By increasing diversity that better reflects patients in all scenarios of use, we can mitigate DDoH mechanisms and increase trust and validity in clinical practice and research.
OBJECTIVE: Vast 12-lead ECGs repositories provide opportunities to develop new machine learning approaches for creating accurate and automatic diagnostic systems for cardiac abnormalities. However, most 12-lead ECG classification studies are trained, tested, or developed in single, small, or relatively homogeneous datasets. In addition, most algorithms focus on identifying small numbers of cardiac arrhythmias that do not represent the complexity and difficulty of ECG interpretation. This work addresses these issues by providing a standard, multi-institutional database and a novel scoring metric through a public competition: the PhysioNet/Computing in Cardiology Challenge 2020. APPROACH: A total of 66 361 12-lead ECG recordings were sourced from six hospital systems from four countries across three continents; 43 101 recordings were posted publicly with a focus on 27 diagnoses. For the first time in a public competition, we required teams to publish open-source code for both training and testing their algorithms, ensuring full scientific reproducibility. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 217 teams submitted 1395 algorithms during the Challenge, representing a diversity of approaches for identifying cardiac abnormalities from both academia and industry. As with previous Challenges, high-performing algorithms exhibited significant drops ([Formula: see text]10%) in performance on the hidden test data. SIGNIFICANCE: Data from diverse institutions allowed us to assess algorithmic generalizability. A novel evaluation metric considered different misclassification errors for different cardiac abnormalities, capturing the outcomes and risks of different diagnoses. Requiring both trained models and code for training models improved the generalizability of submissions, setting a new bar in reproducibility for public data science competitions.
Cardiology , Electrocardiography , Algorithms , Arrhythmias, Cardiac/diagnosis , Databases, Factual , Electrocardiography/classification , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Reproducibility of Results
BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 has caused over 36,000,000 cases and 1,000,000 deaths globally. Comprehensive assessment of the multifaceted anti-viral antibody response is critical for diagnosis, differentiation of severe disease, and characterization of long-term immunity. Initial observations suggest that severe disease is associated with higher antibody levels and greater B cell/plasmablast responses. A multi-antigen immunoassay to define the complex serological landscape and clinical associations is essential. METHODS: We developed a multiplex immunoassay and evaluated serum/plasma from adults with RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections during acute illness (N=52) and convalescence (N=69); and pre-pandemic (N=106) and post-pandemic (N=137) healthy adults. We measured IgA, IgG, and/or IgM against SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid (N), Spike domain 1 (S1), receptor binding domain (S1-RBD) and S1-N-terminal domain (S1-NTD). RESULTS: To diagnose infection, the combined [IgA+IgG+IgM] or IgG for N, S1, and S1-RBD yielded AUC values -0.90 by ROC curves. From days 6-30 post-symptom onset, the levels of antigen-specific IgG, IgA or [IgA+IgG+IgM] were higher in patients with severe/critical compared to mild/moderate infections. Consistent with excessive concentrations of antibodies, a strong prozone effect was observed in sera from severe/critical patients. Notably, mild/moderate patients displayed a slower rise and lower peak in anti-N and anti-S1 IgG levels compared to severe/critical patients, but anti-RBD IgG and neutralization responses reached similar levels at 2-4 months. CONCLUSION: This SARS-CoV-2 multiplex immunoassay measures the magnitude, complexity and kinetics of the antibody response against multiple viral antigens. The IgG and combined-isotype SARS-CoV-2 multiplex assay is highly diagnostic of acute and convalescent disease and may prognosticate severity early in illness. ONE SENTENCE SUMMARY: In contrast to patients with moderate infections, those with severe COVID-19 develop prominent, early antibody responses to S1 and N proteins.
