The effect of vagotomy on the motility of the small intestine.

H. Roth,A. Beams

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5085(59)80067-6

IF: 29.4

1959-04-01

Gastroenterology

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Promising algorithms to perilous applications: a systematic review of risk stratification tools for predicting healthcare utilisation

Christopher Oddy,Joe Zhang,Jessica Morley,Hutan Ashrafian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjhci-2024-101065

2024-06-19

Abstract:Objectives: Risk stratification tools that predict healthcare utilisation are extensively integrated into primary care systems worldwide, forming a key component of anticipatory care pathways, where high-risk individuals are targeted by preventative interventions. Existing work broadly focuses on comparing model performance in retrospective cohorts with little attention paid to efficacy in reducing morbidity when deployed in different global contexts. We review the evidence supporting the use of such tools in real-world settings, from retrospective dataset performance to pathway evaluation. Methods: A systematic search was undertaken to identify studies reporting the development, validation and deployment of models that predict healthcare utilisation in unselected primary care cohorts, comparable to their current real-world application. Results: Among 3897 articles screened, 51 studies were identified evaluating 28 risk prediction models. Half underwent external validation yet only two were validated internationally. No association between validation context and model discrimination was observed. The majority of real-world evaluation studies reported no change, or indeed significant increases, in healthcare utilisation within targeted groups, with only one-third of reports demonstrating some benefit. Discussion: While model discrimination appears satisfactorily robust to application context there is little evidence to suggest that accurate identification of high-risk individuals can be reliably translated to improvements in service delivery or morbidity. Conclusions: The evidence does not support further integration of care pathways with costly population-level interventions based on risk prediction in unselected primary care cohorts. There is an urgent need to independently appraise the safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of risk prediction systems that are already widely deployed within primary care.
Factors influencing the implementation of cardiovascular risk scoring in primary care: a mixed-method systematic review

Tonny B Muthee,Derick Kimathi,Georgia C Richards,Anthony Etyang,David Nunan,Veronika Williams,Carl Heneghan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-020-01022-x

2020-07-20

Abstract:Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) such as ischemic heart disease and stroke is the leading causes of death and disability globally with a growing burden in low and middle-income countries. A credible way of managing the incidence and prevalence of cardiovascular diseases is by reducing risk factors. This understanding has led to the development and recommendation for the clinical use of cardiovascular risk stratification tools. These tools enhance clinical decision-making. However, there is a lag in the implementation of these tools in most countries. This systematic review seeks to synthesise the current knowledge of the factors influencing the implementation of cardiovascular risk scoring in primary care settings. Methods: We searched bibliographic databases and grey literature for studies of any design relating to the topic. Titles, abstracts and full texts were independently assessed for eligibility by two reviewers. This was followed by quality assessment and data extraction. We analysed data using an integrated and best fit framework synthesis approach to identify these factors. Quantitative and qualitative forms of data were combined into a single mixed-methods synthesis. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used as the guiding tool and template for this analysis. Results: Twenty-five studies (cross-sectional n = 12, qualitative n = 9 and mixed-methods n = 4) were included in this review. Twenty (80%) of these were conducted in high-income countries. Only four studies (16%) included patients as participants. This review reports on a total of eleven cardiovascular risk stratification tools. The factors influencing the implementation of cardiovascular risk scoring are related to clinical setting and healthcare system (resources, priorities, practice culture and organisation), users (attributes and interactions between users) and the specific cardiovascular risk tool (characteristics, perceived role and effectiveness). Conclusions: While these findings bolster the understanding of implementation complexity, there exists limited research in the context of low and middle-income countries. Notwithstanding the need to direct resources in bridging this gap, it is also crucial that these efforts are in concert with providing high-quality evidence on the clinical effectiveness of using cardiovascular risk scoring to improve cardiovascular disease outcomes of mortality and morbidity. Trial registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018092679.
Implementing Risk Stratification in Primary Care: Challenges and Strategies

Jesse Wagner,Jennifer D Hall,Rachel L Ross,David Cameron,Bhavaya Sachdeva,Devan Kansagara,Deborah J Cohen,David A Dorr

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2019.04.180341

Abstract:Introduction: Primary care risk stratification (RS) has been shown to help practices better understand their patient populations' needs and may improve health outcomes and reduce expenditures by targeting and tailoring care to high-need patients. This study aims to understand key considerations practices faced and practice experiences as they began to implement RS models. Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews about experiences in RS with 34 stakeholders from 15 primary care practices in Oregon and Colorado and qualitatively analyzed the data. Results: Three decisions were important in shaping practices' experiences with RS: choosing established versus self-created algorithms or heuristics, clinical intuition, or a combination; selecting mechanisms for assigning risk scores; determining how to integrate RS approaches into care delivery. Practices using clinical intuition found stratification time-consuming and difficult to incorporate into existing workflows, but trusted risk scores more than those using algorithms. Trust in risk scores was influenced by data extraction capabilities; practices often lacked sufficient data to calculate their perceived optimal risk score. Displaying the scores to the care team was a major issue. Finally, obtaining buy-in from care team members was challenging, requiring repeated cycles of improvement and workflow integration. Discussion: Practices used iterative approaches to RS implementation. As a result, procedural and algorithmic changes were introduced and were influenced by practices' health IT, staffing, and resource capacities. Practices were most successful when able to make iterative changes to their approaches, incorporated both automation and human process in RS, educated staff on the importance of RS, and had readily accessible risk scores.
Acceptability of risk stratification within population-based cancer screening from the perspective of healthcare professionals: A mixed methods systematic review and recommendations to support implementation

Lily C. Taylor,Katie Law,Alison Hutchinson,Rebecca A. Dennison,Juliet A. Usher-Smith

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279201

IF: 3.7

2023-02-24

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Background Introduction of risk stratification within population-based cancer screening programmes has the potential to optimise resource allocation by targeting screening towards members of the population who will benefit from it most. Endorsement from healthcare professionals is necessary to facilitate successful development and implementation of risk-stratified interventions. Therefore, this review aims to explore whether using risk stratification within population-based cancer screening programmes is acceptable to healthcare professionals and to identify any requirements for successful implementation. Methods We searched four electronic databases from January 2010 to October 2021 for quantitative, qualitative, or primary mixed methods studies reporting healthcare professional and/or other stakeholder opinions on acceptability of risk-stratified population-based cancer screening. Quality of the included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Data were analysed using the Joanna Briggs Institute convergent integrated approach to mixed methods analysis and mapped onto the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research using a ‘best fit’ approach. PROSPERO record CRD42021286667. Results A total of 12,039 papers were identified through the literature search and seven papers were included in the review, six in the context of breast cancer screening and one considering screening for ovarian cancer. Risk stratification was broadly considered acceptable, with the findings covering all five domains of the framework: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of individuals, and process. Across these five domains, key areas that were identified as needing further consideration to support implementation were: a need for greater evidence, particularly for de-intensifying screening; resource limitations; need for staff training and clear communication; and the importance of public involvement. Conclusions Risk stratification of population-based cancer screening programmes is largely acceptable to healthcare professionals, but support and training will be required to successfully facilitate implementation. Future research should focus on strengthening the evidence base for risk stratification, particularly in relation to reducing screening frequency among low-risk cohorts and the acceptability of this approach across different cancer types.

multidisciplinary sciences
Assessing the Value of Risk Predictions by Using Risk Stratification Tables

Holly Janes,Margaret S. Pepe,Wen Gu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-149-10-200811180-00009

IF: 39.2

2008-11-18

Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract:The recent epidemiologic and clinical literature is filled with studies evaluating statistical models for predicting disease or some other adverse event. Risk stratification tables are a new way to evaluate the benefit of adding a new risk marker to a risk prediction model that includes an established set of markers. This approach involves cross-tabulating risk predictions from models with and without the new marker. In this article, the authors use examples to show how risk stratification tables can be used to compare 3 important measures of model performance between the models with and those without the new marker: the extent to which the risks calculated from the models reflect the actual fraction of persons in the population with events (calibration); the proportions in which the population is stratified into clinically relevant risk categories (stratification capacity); and the extent to which participants with events are assigned to high-risk categories and those without events are assigned to low-risk categories (classification accuracy). They detail common misinterpretations and misuses of the risk stratification method and conclude that the information that can be extracted from risk stratification tables is an enormous improvement over commonly reported measures of risk prediction model performance (for example, c-statistics and Hosmer-Lemeshow tests) because it describes the value of the models for guiding medical decisions.

medicine, general & internal
Towards Regional Population Health Management: A Prospective Analysis Using the Adjusted Clinical Groups Classification

Felix Cillessen,Pim Steenbergh,Jacob Hofdijk

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI240430

2024-08-22

Abstract:This research seeks to assess the potential of regionally integrated health management for specific sub-populations, including the incorporation of self-management initiatives. It will achieve this by conducting a thorough stratification analysis of hospital data, utilizing the Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACG) classification system. The approach involves a retrospective review of healthcare data spanning five years, which includes patient demographics, health outcomes, and healthcare utilization metrics. We intend to use the ACG method to classify the patient population into pertinent groups that mirror their health requirements and resource use. The insights obtained from this analysis will be used to create a localized adaptation of the Kaiser Permanente Pyramid Model of Care. This adaptation aims to identify the distribution of costs among patients treated in the Rivierenland Hospital. We anticipate that stratifying data with the ACG method will identify distinct multimorbid subgroups. These subgroups will have unique healthcare requirements. Early interventions and customized health management strategies, based on these insights, could enhance health outcomes and resource efficiency for high-risk patients. This analysis will serve as a foundation for constructive discussions with hospital management and clinical staff, fostering a deeper comprehension of the patients' burden of disease. It might also foster multidisciplinary collaboration opportunities between medical specialties as with regional healthcare partners such as general practitioners (GPs), mental health and other long-term care organizations. Moreover, we anticipate that self-care initiatives, supported by customized health information, will encourage increased patient engagement and strategies for enhancing lifestyle improvements. This strategy is expected to enable the personalization of advanced care planning based on individual needs profiles, thereby improving the management of complex and chronic conditions, and encouraging self-care practices. Our anticipated findings highlight the potential benefits of a data-informed approach to advancing healthcare outcomes and present opportunities for future investigations to refine and implement such integrated care models across the region.
Development of scoring system for risk stratification in clinical medicine: a step-by-step tutorial.

Zhongheng Zhang,Haoyang Zhang,Mahesh Kumar Khanal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2017.08.22

IF: 3.616

2017-01-01

Annals of Translational Medicine

Abstract:Risk scores play an important role in clinical medicine. With advances in information technology and availability of electronic healthcare record, scoring systems of less commonly seen diseases and population can be developed. The aim of the article is to provide a tutorial on how to develop and validate risk scores based on a virtual dataset by using R software. The dataset we generated including numeric and categorical variables and firstly the numeric variables would be converted to factor variables according to cutoff points identified by the LOESS smoother. Then risk points of each variable, which are related to the coefficients in logistic regression, are assigned to each level of the converted factor variables and other categorical variables. Finally, the total score is calculated for each subject to represent the prediction of the outcome event probability. The original dataset is split into training and validation subsets. Discrimination and calibration are evaluated in the validation subset. R codes with explanations are presented in the main text.
Detection of epidermal growth factor receptor mutation in transbronchial needle aspirates of non-small cell lung cancer.

A. Horiike,H. Kimura,K. Nishio,F. Ohyanagi,Y. Satoh,S. Okumura,Y. Ishikawa,K. Nakagawa,T. Horai,M. Nishio

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1378/CHEST.06-1673

IF: 9.6

2007-06-01

Chest

Abstract:BACKGROUND Somatic mutations of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) are closely associated with an objective response to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. However, it is difficult to obtain sufficient tumor samples from patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), so these diagnoses are often made using cytology procedures alone. The aim of this study was to detect EGFR mutations in transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA) samples using both direct sequencing and a highly sensitive assay (Scorpions Amplified Refractory Mutation System; DxS; Manchester, UK) [ARMS], and to compare the sensitivity of these methods. METHODS We enrolled 94 patients (63 men and 31 women) with NSCLC in this study. Cytologic diagnoses were adenocarcinoma (n = 58), squamous cell carcinoma (n = 24), and other types of NSCLC (n = 12). We extracted DNA from the TBNA samples, and EGFR mutations were analyzed using both direct sequencing (exons 19 and 21) and the Scorpions ARMS method (E746 A750del and L858R). RESULTS Mutations were detected in 31 patients (33%; 14 women and 17 men). Of these, 23 patients had adenocarcinoma, 4 had squamous cell carcinoma, and 4 had other types of NSCLC. Direct sequencing detected 13 mutations (14%) in 13 patients (E746-A750del, n = 6; L858R, n = 7), and the Scorpions ARMS method detected 27 mutations (29%) in 27 patients (E746 A750del, n = 16; L858R, n = 11 patients). CONCLUSIONS Both methods detected EGFR mutations in TBNA samples, but Scorpions ARMS is more sensitive than direct sequencing.
Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Primary Prevention Advice in Primary Care: A Systematic Review of Provider Attitudes and Routine Behaviours

Sarah Bellhouse,Rhiannon E. Hawkes,Sacha J. Howell,Louise Gorman,David P. French

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13164150

2021-08-18

Cancers

Abstract:Implementing risk-stratified breast cancer screening is being considered internationally. It has been suggested that primary care will need to take a role in delivering this service, including risk assessment and provision of primary prevention advice. This systematic review aimed to assess the acceptability of these tasks to primary care providers. Five databases were searched up to July–August 2020, yielding 29 eligible studies, of which 27 were narratively synthesised. The review was pre-registered (PROSPERO: CRD42020197676). Primary care providers report frequently collecting breast cancer family history information, but rarely using quantitative tools integrating additional risk factors. Primary care providers reported high levels of discomfort and low confidence with respect to risk-reducing medications although very few reported doubts about the evidence base underpinning their use. Insufficient education/training and perceived discomfort conducting both tasks were notable barriers. Primary care providers are more likely to accept an increased role in breast cancer risk assessment than advising on risk-reducing medications. To realise the benefits of risk-based screening and prevention at a population level, primary care will need to proactively assess breast cancer risk and advise on risk-reducing medications. To facilitate this, adaptations to infrastructure such as integrated tools are necessary in addition to provision of education.

oncology
Some results on the growth properties of Wronskians

S. Datta,A. Jha

Abstract:The aim of this paper paper is to study the comparative growth properties of the composition of entire and meromorphic functions and wronskians generated by them improving some earlier results.
Modeling the costs and long-term health benefits of screening the general population for risks of cardiovascular disease: a review of methods used in the literature

David Epstein,Leticia García-Mochón,Stephen Kaptoge,Simon G. Thompson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-015-0753-2

2015-12-18

The European Journal of Health Economics

Abstract:BackgroundStrategies for screening and intervening to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in primary care settings need to be assessed in terms of both their costs and long-term health effects. We undertook a literature review to investigate the methodologies used.MethodsIn a framework of developing a new health-economic model for evaluating different screening strategies for primary prevention of CVD in Europe (EPIC-CVD project), we identified seven key modeling issues and reviewed papers published between 2000 and 2013 to assess how they were addressed.ResultsWe found 13 relevant health-economic modeling studies of screening to prevent CVD in primary care. The models varied in their degree of complexity, with between two and 33 health states. Programmes that screen the whole population by a fixed cut-off (e.g., predicted 10-year CVD risk >20 %) identify predominantly elderly people, who may not be those most likely to benefit from long-term treatment. Uncertainty and model validation were generally poorly addressed. Few studies considered the disutility of taking drugs in otherwise healthy individuals or the budget impact of the programme.ConclusionsModel validation, incorporation of parameter uncertainty, and sensitivity analyses for assumptions made are all important components of model building and reporting, and deserve more attention. Complex models may not necessarily give more accurate predictions. Availability of a large enough source dataset to reliably estimate all relevant input parameters is crucial for achieving credible results. Decision criteria should consider budget impact and the medicalization of the population as well as cost-effectiveness thresholds.

health policy & services,economics
Effects of dietary oils on pulmonary vascular reactivity and chronic hypoxic pulmonary hypertension in rats.

C. Lu,D. Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02887795

Abstract:
Multi-cancer risk stratification based on national health data: a retrospective modelling and validation study

Alexander W Jung,Peter C Holm,Kumar Gaurav,Jessica Xin Hjaltelin,Davide Placido,Laust Hvas Mortensen,Ewan Birney,S⊘ren Brunak,Moritz Gerstung

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s2589-7500(24)00062-1

IF: 36.615

2024-05-25

The Lancet Digital Health

Abstract:Summary Background Health care is experiencing a drive towards digitisation, and many countries are implementing national health data resources. Although a range of cancer risk models exists, the utility on a population level for risk stratification across cancer types has not been fully explored. We aimed to close this gap by evaluating pan-cancer risk models built on electronic health records across the Danish population with validation in the UK Biobank. Methods In this retrospective modelling and validation study, data for model development and internal validation were derived from the following Danish health registries: the Central Person Registry, the Danish National Patient Registry, the death registry, the cancer registry, and full-text medical records from secondary care records in the capital region. The development data included adults aged 16–86 years without previous malignant cancers in the time period from Jan 1, 1995, to Dec 31, 2014. The internal validation period was from Jan 1, 2015, to April 10, 2018, and the data included all adults without a previous indication of cancer aged 16–75 years on Dec 31, 2014. The external validation cohort from the UK Biobank included all adults without a previous indication of cancer aged 50–75 years. We used time-dependent Bayesian Cox hazard models built on the combined medical history of Danish individuals. A set of 1392 covariates from available clinical disease trajectories, text-mined basic health factors, and family histories were used to train predictive models of 20 major cancer types. The models were validated on cancer incidence between 2015 and 2018 across Denmark and on individuals in the UK Biobank. The primary outcomes were discrimination and calibration performance. Findings From the Danish registries, we included 6 732 553 individuals covering 60 million hospital visits, 90 million diagnoses, and a total of 193 million life-years between Jan 1, 1978, and April 10, 2018. Danish registry data covering the period from Jan 1, 2015, to April 10, 2018, were used to internally validate risk models, containing a total of 4 248 491 individuals who remained at risk of a primary malignant cancer diagnosis and 67 401 cancer cases recorded. For the external validation, we evaluated the same time period in the UK Biobank covering 377 004 individuals with 11 486 cancer cases. The predictive performance of the models on Danish data showed good discrimination (concordance index 0·81 [SD 0·08], ranging from 0·66 [95% CI 0·65–0·67] for cervix uteri cancer to 0·91 [0·90–0·92] for liver cancer). Performance was similar on the UK Biobank in a direct transfer when controlling for shifts in the age distribution (concordance index 0·66 [SD 0·08], ranging from 0·55 [95% CI 0·44–0·66] for cervix uteri cancer to 0·78 [0·77–0·79] for lung cancer). Cancer risks were associated, in addition to heritable components, with a broad range of preceding diagnoses and health factors. The best overall performance was seen for cancers of the digestive system (oesophageal, stomach, colorectal, liver, and pancreatic) but also thyroid, kidney, and uterine cancers. Interpretation Data available in national electronic health databases can be used to approximate cancer risk factors and enable risk predictions in most cancer types. Model predictions generalise between the Danish and UK health-care systems. With the emergence of multi-cancer early detection tests, electronic health record-based risk models could supplement screening efforts. Funding Novo Nordisk Foundation and the Danish Innovation Foundation.

medicine, general & internal,medical informatics
A probabilistic topic model for clinical risk stratification from electronic health records

Zhengxing Huang,Wei Dong,Huilong Duan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2015.09.005

IF: 8

2015-12-01

Journal of Biomedical Informatics

Abstract:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Risk stratification aims to provide physicians with the accurate assessment of a patient's clinical risk such that an individualized prevention or management strategy can be developed and delivered. Existing risk stratification techniques mainly focus on predicting the overall risk of an individual patient in a supervised manner, and, at the cohort level, often offer little insight beyond a flat score-based segmentation from the labeled clinical dataset. To this end, in this paper, we propose a new approach for risk stratification by exploring a large volume of electronic health records (EHRs) in an unsupervised fashion.METHODS: Along this line, this paper proposes a novel probabilistic topic modeling framework called probabilistic risk stratification model (PRSM) based on Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA). The proposed PRSM recognizes a patient clinical state as a probabilistic combination of latent sub-profiles, and generates sub-profile-specific risk tiers of patients from their EHRs in a fully unsupervised fashion. The achieved stratification results can be easily recognized as high-, medium- and low-risk, respectively. In addition, we present an extension of PRSM, called weakly supervised PRSM (WS-PRSM) by incorporating minimum prior information into the model, in order to improve the risk stratification accuracy, and to make our models highly portable to risk stratification tasks of various diseases.RESULTS: We verify the effectiveness of the proposed approach on a clinical dataset containing 3463 coronary heart disease (CHD) patient instances. Both PRSM and WS-PRSM were compared with two established supervised risk stratification algorithms, i.e., logistic regression and support vector machine, and showed the effectiveness of our models in risk stratification of CHD in terms of the Area Under the receiver operating characteristic Curve (AUC) analysis. As well, in comparison with PRSM, WS-PRSM has over 2% performance gain, on the experimental dataset, demonstrating that incorporating risk scoring knowledge as prior information can improve the performance in risk stratification.CONCLUSIONS: Experimental results reveal that our models achieve competitive performance in risk stratification in comparison with existing supervised approaches. In addition, the unsupervised nature of our models makes them highly portable to the risk stratification tasks of various diseases. Moreover, patient sub-profiles and sub-profile-specific risk tiers generated by our models are coherent and informative, and provide significant potential to be explored for the further tasks, such as patient cohort analysis. We hypothesize that the proposed framework can readily meet the demand for risk stratification from a large volume of EHRs in an open-ended fashion.

medical informatics,computer science, interdisciplinary applications
Effect of using cardiovascular risk scoring in routine risk assessment in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: protocol for an overview of systematic reviews

Krzysztof Studziński,Tomasz Tomasik,Janusz Krzysztoń,Jacek Jóźwiak,Adam Windak

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014206

IF: 3.006

2017-03-01

BMJ Open

Abstract:INTRODUCTION: Major clinical practice guidelines recommend assessing risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) using absolute/global/total CVD risk scores. However, the effectiveness of using them in clinical practice, despite publication of numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs), is still poorly understood. To summarise and analyse current knowledge in this field, we will carry out an overview of existing systematic reviews (SRs). The objective of this overview will be to assess the effect of using cardiovascular risk scoring in routine risk assessment in primary prevention of CVD compared with standard care.METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will include SRs and meta-analyses which take into account RCTs and quasi-RCTs investigating the effect of using cardiovascular risk scoring in routine risk assessment in primary prevention of CVD. SRs will be retrieved from 4 bibliographical databases and reference lists of identified reviews. Additionally, the PROSPERO database will be searched for unpublished, ongoing or recently completed SRs. 2 reviewers will assess the SRs independently for eligibility and bias. The data will be extracted to a special form. Any disagreement will be resolved by discussion. In case of lack of consensus, a third author will arbitrate. The overview of SRs will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for overview of SRs. We will summarise evidence concerning whether use of the absolute/global/total CVD risk scoring tools in primary prevention of CVD is effective and supported with scientific data or not. If we face unsatisfactory confirmation, we will highlight a need for further research and advice on how to plan such a study. We will submit the results of our study for peer-review publication in a journal indexed in the international bibliographic database of biomedical information.

medicine, general & internal
Screening tools assessing mental illness in primary care: A systematic review

Bernadette Neulinger,Christopher Ebert,Kirsten Lochbühler,Antje Bergmann,Jochen Gensichen,Karoline Lukaschek

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2024.2418299

Abstract:Background: To better manage patients with a wide range of mental health problems, general practitioners would benefit from diagnostically accurate and time-efficient screening tools that comprehensively assess mental illness. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to identify screening tools that either take a multiple-mental disorder or a transdiagnostic approach. As primary and secondary outcomes, diagnostic accuracy and time efficiency were investigated. Methods: The data bases MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Psyndex and PsycINFO were searched. Studies reporting on multiple-mental disorder or transdiagnostic screening tools used in primary care with adult patients were included. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value served as measures of diagnostic accuracy. Time efficiency was evaluated by the number of items of a screening tool and the time required for its completion and evaluation. Results: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. The majority of screening tools assessed multiple mental disorders separately. A sub-group of screening tools took a transdiagnostic approach by examining the spectrum of mood, anxiety and stress-related disorders. One screening tool used internalised, cognitive/somatic and externalised dysfunction as transdiagnostic domains of mental illness. Mostly, a sufficient sensitivity and specificity was reported. All screening tools were found to be time efficient. Conclusion: The eleven identified screening tools can support general practitioners to identify patients with mental health problems. However, there was great heterogeneity concerning their diagnostic scope of psychopathology. Further screening tools for primary care are needed that target broad constructs of mental illness, such as transdiagnostic factors or personality dysfunction.
Multi-cohort modeling strategies for scalable globally accessible prostate cancer risk tools

Johanna Tolksdorf,Michael W Kattan,Stephen A Boorjian,Stephen J Freedland,Karim Saba,Cedric Poyet,Lourdes Guerrios,Amanda De Hoedt,Michael A Liss,Robin J Leach,Javier Hernandez,Emily Vertosick,Andrew J Vickers,Donna P Ankerst

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0839-0

2019-10-15

Abstract:Background: Online clinical risk prediction tools built on data from multiple cohorts are increasingly being utilized for contemporary doctor-patient decision-making and validation. This report outlines a comprehensive data science strategy for building such tools with application to the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group prostate cancer risk prediction tool. Methods: We created models for high-grade prostate cancer risk using six established risk factors. The data comprised 8492 prostate biopsies collected from ten institutions, 2 in Europe and 8 across North America. We calculated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for discrimination, the Hosmer-Lemeshow test statistic (HLS) for calibration and the clinical net benefit at risk threshold 15%. We implemented several internal cross-validation schemes to assess the influence of modeling method and individual cohort on validation performance. Results: High-grade disease prevalence ranged from 18% in Zurich (1863 biopsies) to 39% in UT Health San Antonio (899 biopsies). Visualization revealed outliers in terms of risk factors, including San Juan VA (51% abnormal digital rectal exam), Durham VA (63% African American), and Zurich (2.8% family history). Exclusion of any cohort did not significantly affect the AUC or HLS, nor did the choice of prediction model (pooled, random-effects, meta-analysis). Excluding the lowest-prevalence Zurich cohort from training sets did not statistically significantly change the validation metrics for any of the individual cohorts, except for Sunnybrook, where the effect on the AUC was minimal. Therefore the final multivariable logistic model was built by pooling the data from all cohorts using logistic regression. Higher prostate-specific antigen and age, abnormal digital rectal exam, African ancestry and a family history of prostate cancer increased risk of high-grade prostate cancer, while a history of a prior negative prostate biopsy decreased risk (all p-values < 0.004). Conclusions: We have outlined a multi-cohort model-building internal validation strategy for developing globally accessible and scalable risk prediction tools.
Risk stratification at primary care centres in Valencia (Spain) to activate integrated care pathways for elderly patients with chronic conditions

Ascensión Doñate-Martínez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.3529

2017-10-17

International Journal of Integrated Care

Abstract:Introduction: The activation of integrated care pathways is not always easy and is time-consuming, so the standardized use of stratification tools (ST) can support health care professionals in decision-making processes. Several ST –developed and validated in the United States– have been implemented in the Valencia Region (Spain) at primary care (PC) centres to identify elders with multimorbidity at risk of suffering future hospital admissions (FHA). In spite of the usefulness of these instruments, it would be recommended to apply STs which have been specifically designed on the basis of the Spanish healthcare system and the characteristics of its population. Thus, the objective of this study was to design a ST aimed at the identification of elders at risk of hospital admissions in the following 12 months in the Valencian Healthcare System. Methods: The study started with the organization of focus groups (FG) with six multidisciplinary PC professionals aimed at selecting potential variables to be included in the ST. From the FG’s results a retrospective study was carried out with the objective of identifying the most significant variables. These variables were tested in a sample of 107 elders. In the last stage, the combination of variables derived from the previous steps was tested in a sample of 1,000 patients in order to select a final combination of variables and to build a predictive algorithm through binary logistic regression analysis.Results: A set of 13 potential variables to be included in our ST were identified in the FG. These variables comprised data on socio-demographics, clinical and social aspects and registers on the previous use of health resources. As part of the retrospective studies, binary logistic regression analysis determined that the following variables were statistically significant as predictors of FHA: ‘chronic respiratory disease’ (OR= 2.32, p= 0.015), ‘chronic heart disease’ (OR= 2.10, p= 0.019), ‘palliative care’ (OR= 22.53, p= 0.04), and the ‘number of previous visits to emergency department at hospital’ (OR= 1.82, p< 0.001). The model derived a risk score from 0 to 1 for each patient, classifying patients as high risk of FHA at a risk score threshold of 0.5 or higher. The model had a sensitivity of 42% and specificity of 96% and the AUC was 0.76.Discussions: The model developed within this study has shown an optimal performance, and an acceptable ability to identify patients at high risk of FHA who really were admitted(sensitivity of 42%), an excellent ability to identify patients at low risk who really did not suffer any admission (specificity of 96%). The accuracy detecting patients was similar to other comparable studies or even higher with reported AUC of 0.764. Moreover, the model incorporates variables that can be collected automatically from electronic health information systems (eHIS). Furthermore, the experts participating in the FG highlighted some social variables – usually not registered within eHIS – as determinants of health, especially in elders with chronic conditions (such as availability of knowledge and skills for appropriate self-care, social and/or family support or economic difficulties). Thus, it is proposed a 2-phase stratification system: the first one will calculate the developed algorithm through eHIS, and the second one will assess social variables by consulting the professional of reference.Conclusions: The final predictive model is composed by variables available at eHIS, so it can be easily introduced into health administration system of the Valencia Region. From this screening and decision-making support ST, professionals will be able to implement a wide range of care plans in accordance with patients’ health and social needs which can potentially improve quality of care and favor that older people can remain at home longer.Lessons learned: It is possible to design new ST on the basis of the target population profile and the characteristics of the healthcare system.Limitations: The sample is not representative of the whole elderly population in the Valencia Region. Moreover, the sensitivity of the model is limited.Suggestions for future research: Future studies are needed to validate these results with a larger sample from the Valencia Region and other regions in Spain. Moreover, it would be interesting to explore their applicability in other health and social care settings and even in other European contexts assessing the degree of similarity or variance of discriminating factors or the available electronic data sets. Currently, we continue this study developing an integrated care protocol to be implemented in those patients identified as high risk of suffering FHA by a multidisciplinary team of PC professionals (general practitioners, nurses and social workers).

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
A Predefined Rule-Based Multi-Factor Risk Stratification Is Associated With Improved Outcomes at a Rural Primary Care Practice

Laith Abu Lekham,Ellen Hey,Jose Canario,Yissette Rivas,Amanda Felice,Tiffani Mantegna,Yong Wang,Mohammad T. Khasawneh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/fch.0000000000000405

2024-05-18

Family & Community Health

Abstract:This study built a predefined rule-based risk stratification paradigm using 19 factors in a primary care setting that works with rural communities. The factors include medical and nonmedical variables. The nonmedical variables represent 3 demographic attributes and one other factor represents transportation availability. Medical variables represent major clinical variables such as blood pressure and BMI. Many risk stratification models are found in the literature but few integrate medical and nonmedical variables, and to our knowledge, no such model is designed specifically for rural communities. The data used in this study contain the associated variables of all medical visits in 2021. Data from 2022 were used to evaluate the model. After our risk stratification model and several interventions were adopted in 2022, the percentage of patients with high or medium risk of deteriorating health outcomes dropped from 34.9% to 24.4%, which is a reduction of 30%. The medium-complex patient population size, which had been 29% of all patients, decreased by about 4% to 5.7%. According to the analysis, the total risk score showed a strong correlation with 3 risk factors: dual diagnoses, the number of seen providers, and PHQ9 (0.63, 0.54, and 0.45 correlation coefficients, respectively).

public, environmental & occupational health,family studies
BI11 (P052) How should we be identifying high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in the UK? A dual-centre retrospective cohort study

Emilia Peleva,Ling Li,Sharanpal Jeetle,Eleni Ieremia,Zoe C Venables,Rakesh Anand,Li Ling Choo,Abirami Ganesh Kumar,Rebecca Lumley,Chaerin Im,Anna Nielsen-Scott,Rubeta Matin,Catherine Harwood

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjd/ljae090.299

IF: 11.113

2024-06-28

British Journal of Dermatology

Abstract:Abstract The incidence of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is increasing by 5% per year in the UK. Poor outcomes (local recurrence, nodal metastasis, distant metastasis and disease-specific death) are uncommon but are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Accurately identifying cSCCs at risk of poor outcomes is key to informing clinical decision making. Currently available approaches to cSCC risk stratification include UICC8 staging (Union for International Cancer Control, 8th edition), Brigham and Women’s Hospital staging (BWH), British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) 2020 cSCC guidelines, and a newly published clinicopathological cSCC risk calculator. Which should we use for cSCC risk stratification in a UK population? To address this question, we performed a retrospective cohort study of cSCCs treated over 12 months (2015–2016) in two UK tertiary healthcare centres. Following review of clinical notes, histology was reviewed and patients were recalled where required. A total of 1485 histology-confirmed primary cSCCs from 1272 patients were included, with a median follow-up of 3.8 years (interquartile range 1.4–5.8). The median age at diagnosis was 78 years (interquartile range 71–86), 67% were male, 35% had previous skin cancer and 281 (19%) tumours occurred in immunocompromised patients. Poor outcomes occurred in 4.9% of tumours, including local recurrences in 3.4%, nodal or parotid metastases in 2.4%, distant metastases in 0.5%, and cSCC-specific death in 0.8%. Overall, 95% of poor outcomes occurred within 3 years. For all four risk classifications there was a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05) in frequency of poor outcomes in high- vs. low-risk tumours. However, their performances varied considerably: BAD guidelines (low vs. high or very high risk) showed the highest sensitivity for predicting poor outcomes (86% vs. 11–45% for other classifications) but had low specificity (28% vs. 81–98%). The c-index measures the discriminative ability of risk score systems and was highest for the cSCC risk calculator at 0.69 (95% confidence interval 0.63–0.75), but this was not significantly higher than for the other classifications: 0.62 for UICC8, 0.63 for BWH, and 0.65 for BAD. Only the BAD classification incorporates immune status, and showed the highest sensitivity in immunocompromised patient cohorts. This study provides a detailed evaluation of the performance of four cSCC risk classification systems in a dual-centre UK cohort of almost 1500 primary cSCCs. Furthermore, it includes a high proportion of cSCCs from immunocompromised patients, who are often under-represented in skin cancer research. It highlights that no single risk classification was optimal in terms of sensitivity and specificity in predicting poor outcomes. With the rising incidence of cSCC, further improving approaches to cSCC risk classification is now an urgent priority in order to rationalize decision making, including intensity of surveillance and optimal patient selection for adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapies.

dermatology

The effect of vagotomy on the motility of the small intestine.

Promising algorithms to perilous applications: a systematic review of risk stratification tools for predicting healthcare utilisation

Factors influencing the implementation of cardiovascular risk scoring in primary care: a mixed-method systematic review

Implementing Risk Stratification in Primary Care: Challenges and Strategies

Acceptability of risk stratification within population-based cancer screening from the perspective of healthcare professionals: A mixed methods systematic review and recommendations to support implementation

Assessing the Value of Risk Predictions by Using Risk Stratification Tables

Towards Regional Population Health Management: A Prospective Analysis Using the Adjusted Clinical Groups Classification

Development of scoring system for risk stratification in clinical medicine: a step-by-step tutorial.

Detection of epidermal growth factor receptor mutation in transbronchial needle aspirates of non-small cell lung cancer.

Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Primary Prevention Advice in Primary Care: A Systematic Review of Provider Attitudes and Routine Behaviours

Some results on the growth properties of Wronskians

Modeling the costs and long-term health benefits of screening the general population for risks of cardiovascular disease: a review of methods used in the literature

Effects of dietary oils on pulmonary vascular reactivity and chronic hypoxic pulmonary hypertension in rats.

Multi-cancer risk stratification based on national health data: a retrospective modelling and validation study

A probabilistic topic model for clinical risk stratification from electronic health records

Effect of using cardiovascular risk scoring in routine risk assessment in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: protocol for an overview of systematic reviews

Screening tools assessing mental illness in primary care: A systematic review

Multi-cohort modeling strategies for scalable globally accessible prostate cancer risk tools

Risk stratification at primary care centres in Valencia (Spain) to activate integrated care pathways for elderly patients with chronic conditions

A Predefined Rule-Based Multi-Factor Risk Stratification Is Associated With Improved Outcomes at a Rural Primary Care Practice

BI11 (P052) How should we be identifying high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in the UK? A dual-centre retrospective cohort study