ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Using Visual Patient to Show Vital Sign Predictions, a Computer-Based Mixed Quantitative and Qualitative Simulation Study.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMachine 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.
methodsWe 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.
resultsThe 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%).
conclusionsThis 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.