Using Visual Patient to Show Vital Sign Predictions, a Computer-Based Mixed Quantitative and Qualitative Simulation Study.

Visual Patient avatar machine learning monitoring predictive models vital sign predictions

Journal

Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2075-4418
Titre abrégé: Diagnostics (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101658402

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
23 Oct 2023
Historique:
received: 18 09 2023
revised: 16 10 2023
accepted: 19 10 2023
medline: 28 10 2023
pubmed: 28 10 2023
entrez: 28 10 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Machine learning can analyze vast amounts of data and make predictions for events in the future. Our group created machine learning models for vital sign predictions. To transport the information of these predictions without numbers and numerical values and make them easily usable for human caregivers, we aimed to integrate them into the Philips Visual-Patient-avatar, an avatar-based visualization of patient monitoring. We conducted a computer-based simulation study with 70 participants in 3 European university hospitals. We validated the vital sign prediction visualizations by testing their identification by anesthesiologists and intensivists. Each prediction visualization consisted of a condition (e.g., low blood pressure) and an urgency (a visual indication of the timespan in which the condition is expected to occur). To obtain qualitative user feedback, we also conducted standardized interviews and derived statements that participants later rated in an online survey. The mixed logistic regression model showed 77.9% (95% CI 73.2-82.0%) correct identification of prediction visualizations (i.e., condition and urgency both correctly identified) and 93.8% (95% CI 93.7-93.8%) for conditions only (i.e., without considering urgencies). A total of 49 out of 70 participants completed the online survey. The online survey participants agreed that the prediction visualizations were fun to use (32/49, 65.3%), and that they could imagine working with them in the future (30/49, 61.2%). They also agreed that identifying the urgencies was difficult (32/49, 65.3%). This study found that care providers correctly identified >90% of the conditions (i.e., without considering urgencies). The accuracy of identification decreased when considering urgencies in addition to conditions. Therefore, in future development of the technology, we will focus on either only displaying conditions (without urgencies) or improving the visualizations of urgency to enhance usability for human users.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Machine learning can analyze vast amounts of data and make predictions for events in the future. Our group created machine learning models for vital sign predictions. To transport the information of these predictions without numbers and numerical values and make them easily usable for human caregivers, we aimed to integrate them into the Philips Visual-Patient-avatar, an avatar-based visualization of patient monitoring.
METHODS METHODS
We conducted a computer-based simulation study with 70 participants in 3 European university hospitals. We validated the vital sign prediction visualizations by testing their identification by anesthesiologists and intensivists. Each prediction visualization consisted of a condition (e.g., low blood pressure) and an urgency (a visual indication of the timespan in which the condition is expected to occur). To obtain qualitative user feedback, we also conducted standardized interviews and derived statements that participants later rated in an online survey.
RESULTS RESULTS
The mixed logistic regression model showed 77.9% (95% CI 73.2-82.0%) correct identification of prediction visualizations (i.e., condition and urgency both correctly identified) and 93.8% (95% CI 93.7-93.8%) for conditions only (i.e., without considering urgencies). A total of 49 out of 70 participants completed the online survey. The online survey participants agreed that the prediction visualizations were fun to use (32/49, 65.3%), and that they could imagine working with them in the future (30/49, 61.2%). They also agreed that identifying the urgencies was difficult (32/49, 65.3%).
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
This study found that care providers correctly identified >90% of the conditions (i.e., without considering urgencies). The accuracy of identification decreased when considering urgencies in addition to conditions. Therefore, in future development of the technology, we will focus on either only displaying conditions (without urgencies) or improving the visualizations of urgency to enhance usability for human users.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37892102
pii: diagnostics13203281
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13203281
pmc: PMC10606017
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Références

Patterns (N Y). 2022 Jan 14;3(1):100392
pubmed: 35079713
Nat Med. 2020 Jan;26(1):29-38
pubmed: 31932803
BMC Anesthesiol. 2018 Dec 11;18(1):188
pubmed: 30537934
BMJ. 2005 Mar 5;330(7490):493-4
pubmed: 15746111
Qual Res Psychol. 2015 Apr 3;12(2):202-222
pubmed: 27499705
JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Nov 1;178(11):1544-1547
pubmed: 30128552
Comput Biol Med. 2022 Jun;145:105458
pubmed: 35364311
Anesthesiology. 2020 Feb;132(2):379-394
pubmed: 31939856
JAMA. 2019 Jun 18;321(23):2281-2282
pubmed: 31107500
JAMA. 2019 Oct 8;322(14):1351-1352
pubmed: 31393527
N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 4;380(14):1347-1358
pubmed: 30943338
Anesthesiology. 2017 Mar;126(3):472-481
pubmed: 28079566
JMIR Res Protoc. 2016 Jan 05;5(1):e4
pubmed: 26732090
Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2017 Dec;30(6):755-760
pubmed: 28968283
Sensors (Basel). 2020 Apr 09;20(7):
pubmed: 32283625
BMJ. 2021 Oct 20;375:n2281
pubmed: 34670780
Nat Med. 2022 Jul;28(7):1331-1333
pubmed: 35641825
Br J Anaesth. 2019 Oct;123(4):401-403
pubmed: 31443916
Simul Healthc. 2016 Aug;11(4):238-48
pubmed: 27465839
Br J Anaesth. 2021 May;126(5):1046-1054
pubmed: 33879327
EBioMedicine. 2022 Oct;84:104250
pubmed: 36084616
Artif Intell Med. 2020 Mar;103:101785
pubmed: 32143792
N Engl J Med. 2023 Mar 30;388(13):1201-1208
pubmed: 36988595
Nat Med. 2019 Jan;25(1):44-56
pubmed: 30617339
Eur J Public Health. 2019 Oct 1;29(Supplement_3):23-27
pubmed: 31738444
Nat Biomed Eng. 2018 Oct;2(10):709-710
pubmed: 31015650

Auteurs

Amos Malorgio (A)

Institute of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland.

David Henckert (D)

Institute of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland.

Giovanna Schweiger (G)

Institute of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland.

Julia Braun (J)

Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, 8001 Zurich, Switzerland.

Kai Zacharowski (K)

Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine, and Pain Therapy, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, 60323 Frankfurt, Germany.

Florian J Raimann (FJ)

Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine, and Pain Therapy, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, 60323 Frankfurt, Germany.

Florian Piekarski (F)

Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine, and Pain Therapy, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, 60323 Frankfurt, Germany.

Patrick Meybohm (P)

Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency, and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Wuerzburg, 97070 Wuerzburg, Germany.

Sebastian Hottenrott (S)

Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency, and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Wuerzburg, 97070 Wuerzburg, Germany.

Corinna Froehlich (C)

Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency, and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Wuerzburg, 97070 Wuerzburg, Germany.

Donat R Spahn (DR)

Institute of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland.

Christoph B Noethiger (CB)

Institute of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland.

David W Tscholl (DW)

Institute of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland.

Tadzio R Roche (TR)

Institute of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland.

Classifications MeSH