A machine learning framework for interpretable predictions in patient pathways: The case of predicting ICU admission for patients with symptoms of sepsis.

Proactive analysis of patient pathways helps healthcare providers anticipate treatment-related risks, identify outcomes, and allocate resources. Machine learning (ML) can leverage a patient's complete health history to make informed decisions about future events. However, previous work has mostly relied on so-called black-box models, which are unintelligible to humans, making it difficult for clinicians to apply such models. Our work introduces PatWay-Net, an ML framework designed for interpretable predictions of admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) for patients with symptoms of sepsis. We propose a novel type of recurrent neural network and combine it with multi-layer perceptrons to process the patient pathways and produce predictive yet interpretable results. We demonstrate its utility through a comprehensive dashboard that visualizes patient health trajectories, predictive outcomes, and associated risks. Our evaluation includes both predictive performance - where PatWay-Net outperforms standard models such as decision trees, random forests, and gradient-boosted decision trees - and clinical utility, validated through structured interviews with clinicians. By providing improved predictive accuracy along with interpretable and actionable insights, PatWay-Net serves as a valuable tool for healthcare decision support in the critical case of patients with symptoms of sepsis.

Multimodal In-Vehicle Hypoglycemia Warning for Drivers With Type 1 Diabetes: Design and Evaluation in Simulated and Real-World Driving.

BACKGROUND: Hypoglycemia threatens cognitive function and driving safety. Previous research investigated in-vehicle voice assistants as hypoglycemia warnings. However, they could startle drivers. To address this, we combine voice warnings with ambient LEDs. OBJECTIVE: The study assesses the effect of in-vehicle multimodal warning on emotional reaction and technology acceptance among drivers with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Two studies were conducted, one in simulated driving and the other in real-world driving. A quasi-experimental design included 2 independent variables (blood glucose phase and warning modality) and 1 main dependent variable (emotional reaction). Blood glucose was manipulated via intravenous catheters, and warning modality was manipulated by combining a tablet voice warning app and LEDs. Emotional reaction was measured physiologically via skin conductance response and subjectively with the Affective Slider and tested with a mixed-effect linear model. Secondary outcomes included self-reported technology acceptance. Participants were recruited from Bern University Hospital, Switzerland. RESULTS: The simulated and real-world driving studies involved 9 and 10 participants with type 1 diabetes, respectively. Both studies showed significant results in self-reported emotional reactions (P<.001). In simulated driving, neither warning modality nor blood glucose phase significantly affected self-reported arousal, but in real-world driving, both did (F2,68=4.3; P<.05 and F2,76=4.1; P=.03). Warning modality affected self-reported valence in simulated driving (F2,68=3.9; P<.05), while blood glucose phase affected it in real-world driving (F2,76=9.3; P<.001). Skin conductance response did not yield significant results neither in the simulated driving study (modality: F2,68=2.46; P=.09, blood glucose phase: F2,68=0.3; P=.74), nor in the real-world driving study (modality: F2,76=0.8; P=.47, blood glucose phase: F2,76=0.7; P=.5). In both simulated and real-world driving studies, the voice+LED warning modality was the most effective (simulated: mean 3.38, SD 1.06 and real-world: mean 3.5, SD 0.71) and urgent (simulated: mean 3.12, SD 0.64 and real-world: mean 3.6, SD 0.52). Annoyance varied across settings. The standard warning modality was the least effective (simulated: mean 2.25, SD 1.16 and real-world: mean 3.3, SD 1.06) and urgent (simulated: mean 1.88, SD 1.55 and real-world: mean 2.6, SD 1.26) and the most annoying (simulated: mean 2.25, SD 1.16 and real-world: mean 1.7, SD 0.95). In terms of preference, the voice warning modality outperformed the standard warning modality. In simulated driving, the voice+LED warning modality (mean rank 1.5, SD rank 0.82) was preferred over the voice (mean rank 2.2, SD rank 0.6) and standard (mean rank 2.4, SD rank 0.81) warning modalities, while in real-world driving, the voice+LED and voice warning modalities were equally preferred (mean rank 1.8, SD rank 0.79) to the standard warning modality (mean rank 2.4, SD rank 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the mixed results, this paper highlights the potential of implementing voice assistant-based health warnings in cars and advocates for multimodal alerts to enhance hypoglycemia management while driving. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05183191; https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05183191, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05308095; https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05308095.

Effectiveness and User Perception of an In-Vehicle Voice Warning for Hypoglycemia: Development and Feasibility Trial.

BACKGROUND: Hypoglycemia is a frequent and acute complication in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and is associated with a higher risk of car mishaps. Currently, hypoglycemia can be detected and signaled through flash glucose monitoring or continuous glucose monitoring devices, which require manual and visual interaction, thereby removing the focus of attention from the driving task. Hypoglycemia causes a decrease in attention, thereby challenging the safety of using such devices behind the wheel. Here, we present an investigation of a hands-free technology-a voice warning that can potentially be delivered via an in-vehicle voice assistant. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the feasibility of an in-vehicle voice warning for hypoglycemia, evaluating both its effectiveness and user perception. METHODS: We designed a voice warning and evaluated it in 3 studies. In all studies, participants received a voice warning while driving. Study 0 (n=10) assessed the feasibility of using a voice warning with healthy participants driving in a simulator. Study 1 (n=18) assessed the voice warning in participants with T1DM. Study 2 (n=20) assessed the voice warning in participants with T1DM undergoing hypoglycemia while driving in a real car. We measured participants' self-reported perception of the voice warning (with a user experience scale in study 0 and with acceptance, alliance, and trust scales in studies 1 and 2) and compliance behavior (whether they stopped the car and reaction time). In addition, we assessed technology affinity and collected the participants' verbal feedback. RESULTS: Technology affinity was similar across studies and approximately 70% of the maximal value. Perception measure of the voice warning was approximately 62% to 78% in the simulated driving and 34% to 56% in real-world driving. Perception correlated with technology affinity on specific constructs (eg, Affinity for Technology Interaction score and intention to use, optimism and performance expectancy, behavioral intention, Session Alliance Inventory score, innovativeness and hedonic motivation, and negative correlations between discomfort and behavioral intention and discomfort and competence trust; all P<.05). Compliance was 100% in all studies, whereas reaction time was higher in study 1 (mean 23, SD 5.2 seconds) than in study 0 (mean 12.6, SD 5.7 seconds) and study 2 (mean 14.6, SD 4.3 seconds). Finally, verbal feedback showed that the participants preferred the voice warning to be less verbose and interactive. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to investigate the feasibility of an in-vehicle voice warning for hypoglycemia. Drivers find such an implementation useful and effective in a simulated environment, but improvements are needed in the real-world driving context. This study is a kickoff for the use of in-vehicle voice assistants for digital health interventions.