Automated Measurement of Adherence to Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Guidelines using Neurological ICU Data

Using a combination of physiological and treatment information from neurological ICU data-sets, adherence to traumatic brain injury (TBI) guidelines on hypotension, intracranial pressure (ICP) and cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) is calculated automatically. The ICU output is evaluated to capture pressure events and actions taken by clinical staff for patient management, and are then re-expressed as simplified process models. The official TBI guidelines from the Brain Trauma Foundation are similarly evaluated, so the two structures can be compared and a quantifiable distance between the two calculated (the measure of adherence). The methods used include: the compilation of physiological and treatment information into event logs and subsequently process models; the expression of the BTF guidelines in process models within the real-time context of the ICU; a calculation of distance between the two processes using two algorithms (“Direct” and “Weighted”) building on work conducted in th e business process domain. Results are presented across two categories each with clinical utility (minute-by-minute and single patient stays) using a real ICU data-set. Results of two sample patients using a weighted algorithm show a non-adherence level of 6.25% for 42 mins and 56.25% for 708 mins and non-adherence of 18.75% for 17 minutes and 56.25% for 483 minutes. Expressed as two combinatorial metrics (duration/non-adherence (A) and duration * non-adherence (B)), which together indicate the clinical importance of the non-adherence, one has a mean of A=4.63 and B=10014.16 and the other a mean of A=0.43 and B=500.0

A co-occurrence framework conceptualized for bridging the gap between basic science, clinical research and clinical practices

The intellectual impulsiveness of man to understand the unknown and the continual need of the society to improve healthcare have encouraged extensive investigation on numerous and diverse cause-and-effect relationships. The nature of this endeavor, however, renders the inability of investigator at all levels to escape beyond the narrow conceptual boundary described by an early French philosopher as the vicious cycle. To enjoy the theoretically plausible benefits of refined labor division, data-driven healthcare management, and real-time evidence-based practices, it must first be acknowledged that co-occurrence is better than cause-and-effect in explaining how an observation takes place at a particular time. This paper details a co-occurrence framework, and discusses its implications for the global healthcare system

Empirical Methodology for Crowdsourcing Ground Truth

The process of gathering ground truth data through human annotation is a major bottleneck in the use of information extraction methods for populating the Semantic Web. Crowdsourcing-based approaches are gaining popularity in the attempt to solve the issues related to volume of data and lack of annotators. Typically these practices use inter-annotator agreement as a measure of quality. However, in many domains, such as event detection, there is ambiguity in the data, as well as a multitude of perspectives of the information examples. We present an empirically derived methodology for efficiently gathering of ground truth data in a diverse set of use cases covering a variety of domains and annotation tasks. Central to our approach is the use of CrowdTruth metrics that capture inter-annotator disagreement. We show that measuring disagreement is essential for acquiring a high quality ground truth. We achieve this by comparing the quality of the data aggregated with CrowdTruth metrics with majority vote, over a set of diverse crowdsourcing tasks: Medical Relation Extraction, Twitter Event Identification, News Event Extraction and Sound Interpretation. We also show that an increased number of crowd workers leads to growth and stabilization in the quality of annotations, going against the usual practice of employing a small number of annotators.Comment: in publication at the Semantic Web Journa

Detection of REM Sleep Behaviour Disorder by Automated Polysomnography Analysis

Evidence suggests Rapid-Eye-Movement (REM) Sleep Behaviour Disorder (RBD) is an early predictor of Parkinson's disease. This study proposes a fully-automated framework for RBD detection consisting of automated sleep staging followed by RBD identification. Analysis was assessed using a limited polysomnography montage from 53 participants with RBD and 53 age-matched healthy controls. Sleep stage classification was achieved using a Random Forest (RF) classifier and 156 features extracted from electroencephalogram (EEG), electrooculogram (EOG) and electromyogram (EMG) channels. For RBD detection, a RF classifier was trained combining established techniques to quantify muscle atonia with additional features that incorporate sleep architecture and the EMG fractal exponent. Automated multi-state sleep staging achieved a 0.62 Cohen's Kappa score. RBD detection accuracy improved by 10% to 96% (compared to individual established metrics) when using manually annotated sleep staging. Accuracy remained high (92%) when using automated sleep staging. This study outperforms established metrics and demonstrates that incorporating sleep architecture and sleep stage transitions can benefit RBD detection. This study also achieved automated sleep staging with a level of accuracy comparable to manual annotation. This study validates a tractable, fully-automated, and sensitive pipeline for RBD identification that could be translated to wearable take-home technology.Comment: 20 pages, 3 figure

Process mining for healthcare: Characteristics and challenges

Process mining techniques can be used to analyse business processes using the data logged during their execution. These techniques are leveraged in a wide range of domains, including healthcare, where it focuses mainly on the analysis of diagnostic, treatment, and organisational processes. Despite the huge amount of data generated in hospitals by staff and machinery involved in healthcare processes, there is no evidence of a systematic uptake of process mining beyond targeted case studies in a research context. When developing and using process mining in healthcare, distinguishing characteristics of healthcare processes such as their variability and patient-centred focus require targeted attention. Against this background, the Process-Oriented Data Science in Healthcare Alliance has been established to propagate the research and application of techniques targeting the data-driven improvement of healthcare processes. This paper, an initiative of the alliance, presents the distinguishing characteristics of the healthcare domain that need to be considered to successfully use process mining, as well as open challenges that need to be addressed by the community in the future.This work is partially supported by ANID FONDECYT 1220202, Dirección de Investigación de la Vicerrectoría de Investigación de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile - PUENTE [Grant No. 026/ 2021]; and Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo [Grant Nos. ANID-PFCHA/Doctorado Nacional/2019–21190116, ANID-PFCHA/ Doctorado Nacional/2020–21201411]. With regard to the co-author Hilda Klasky, this manuscript has been authored by UT-Battelle, LLC, under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725 with the US Department of Energy (DOE). The US government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the US government retains a nonexclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so, for US government purposes. DOE will provide public access to these results of federally sponsored research in accordance with the DOE Public Access Plan (http://energy.gov/downloads/doe-public-accessplan).Peer ReviewedArticle signat per 55 autors/es: Jorge Munoz-Gama (a)* , Niels Martin (b,c)* , Carlos Fernandez-Llatas (d,g)* , Owen A. Johnson (e)* , Marcos Sepúlveda (a)* , Emmanuel Helm (f)* , Victor Galvez-Yanjari (a)* , Eric Rojas (a) , Antonio Martinez-Millana (d) , Davide Aloini (k) , Ilaria Angela Amantea (l,q,r) , Robert Andrews (ab), Michael Arias (z) , Iris Beerepoot (o) , Elisabetta Benevento (k) , Andrea Burattin (ai), Daniel Capurro (j) , Josep Carmona (s) , Marco Comuzzi (w), Benjamin Dalmas (aj,ak), Rene de la Fuente (a) , Chiara Di Francescomarino (h) , Claudio Di Ciccio (i) , Roberto Gatta (ad,ae), Chiara Ghidini (h) , Fernanda Gonzalez-Lopez (a) , Gema Ibanez-Sanchez (d) , Hilda B. Klasky (p) , Angelina Prima Kurniati (al), Xixi Lu (o) , Felix Mannhardt (m), Ronny Mans (af), Mar Marcos (v) , Renata Medeiros de Carvalho (m), Marco Pegoraro (x) , Simon K. Poon (ag), Luise Pufahl (u) , Hajo A. Reijers (m,o) , Simon Remy (y) , Stefanie Rinderle-Ma (ah), Lucia Sacchi (t) , Fernando Seoane (g,am,an), Minseok Song (aa), Alessandro Stefanini (k) , Emilio Sulis (l) , Arthur H. M. ter Hofstede (ab), Pieter J. Toussaint (ac), Vicente Traver (d) , Zoe Valero-Ramon (d) , Inge van de Weerd (o) , Wil M.P. van der Aalst (x) , Rob Vanwersch (m), Mathias Weske (y) , Moe Thandar Wynn (ab), Francesca Zerbato (n) // (a) Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Chile; (b) Hasselt University, Belgium; (c) Research Foundation Flanders (FWO), Belgium; (d) Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain; (e) University of Leeds, United Kingdom; (f) University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria, Austria; (g) Karolinska Institutet, Sweden; (h) Fondazione Bruno Kessler, Italy; (i) Sapienza University of Rome, Italy; (j) University of Melbourne, Australia; (k) University of Pisa, Italy; (l) University of Turin, Italy; (m) Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands; (n) University of St. Gallen, Switzerland; (o) Utrecht University, The Netherlands; (p) Oak Ridge National Laboratory, United States; (q) University of Bologna, Italy; (r) University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg; (s) Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Spain; (t) University of Pavia, Italy; (u) Technische Universitaet Berlin, Germany; (v) Universitat Jaume I, Spain; (w) Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST), Republic of Korea; (x) RWTH Aachen University, Germany; (y) University of Potsdam, Germany; (z) Universidad de Costa Rica, Costa Rica; (aa) Pohang University of Science and Technology, Republic of Korea; (ab) Queensland University of Technology, Australia; (ac) Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway; (ad) Universita degli Studi di Brescia, Italy; (ae) Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), Switzerland; (af) Philips Research, the Netherlands; (ag) The University of Sydney, Australia; (ah) Technical University of Munich, Germany; (ai) Technical University of Denmark, Denmark; (aj) Mines Saint-Etienne, France; (ak) Université Clermont Auvergne, France; (al) Telkom University, Indonesia; (am) Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden; (an) University of Borås, SwedenPostprint (published version