Sensory Communication

Contains table of contents for Section 2, an introduction and reports on twelve research projects.National Institutes of Health Grant 5 R01 DC00117National Institutes of Health Contract 2 P01 DC00361National Institutes of Health Grant 5 R01 DC00126National Institutes of Health Grant R01-DC00270U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research Contract AFOSR-90-0200National Institutes of Health Grant R29-DC00625U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-88-K-0604U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-91-J-1454U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-92-J-1814U.S. Navy - Naval Training Systems Center Contract N61339-93-M-1213U.S. Navy - Naval Training Systems Center Contract N61339-93-C-0055U.S. Navy - Naval Training Systems Center Contract N61339-93-C-0083U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-92-J-4005U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-93-1-119

Minimum information about a protein affinity reagent (MIAPAR)

This is a proposal developed within the community as an important first step in formalizing standards in reporting the production and properties of protein binding reagents, such as antibodies, developed and sold for the identification and detection of specific proteins present in biological samples. It defines a checklist of required information, intended for use by producers of affinity reagents, qualitycontrol laboratories, users and databases. We envision that both commercial and freely available affinity reagents, as well as published studies using these reagents, could include a MIAPAR-compliant document describing the product’s properties with every available binding partner. This would enable the user or reader to make a fully informed evaluation of the validity of conclusions drawn using this reagent

Hyperoxemia and excess oxygen use in early acute respiratory distress syndrome : Insights from the LUNG SAFE study

Publisher Copyright: © 2020 The Author(s). Copyright: Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.Background: Concerns exist regarding the prevalence and impact of unnecessary oxygen use in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We examined this issue in patients with ARDS enrolled in the Large observational study to UNderstand the Global impact of Severe Acute respiratory FailurE (LUNG SAFE) study. Methods: In this secondary analysis of the LUNG SAFE study, we wished to determine the prevalence and the outcomes associated with hyperoxemia on day 1, sustained hyperoxemia, and excessive oxygen use in patients with early ARDS. Patients who fulfilled criteria of ARDS on day 1 and day 2 of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure were categorized based on the presence of hyperoxemia (PaO2 > 100 mmHg) on day 1, sustained (i.e., present on day 1 and day 2) hyperoxemia, or excessive oxygen use (FIO2 ≥ 0.60 during hyperoxemia). Results: Of 2005 patients that met the inclusion criteria, 131 (6.5%) were hypoxemic (PaO2 < 55 mmHg), 607 (30%) had hyperoxemia on day 1, and 250 (12%) had sustained hyperoxemia. Excess FIO2 use occurred in 400 (66%) out of 607 patients with hyperoxemia. Excess FIO2 use decreased from day 1 to day 2 of ARDS, with most hyperoxemic patients on day 2 receiving relatively low FIO2. Multivariate analyses found no independent relationship between day 1 hyperoxemia, sustained hyperoxemia, or excess FIO2 use and adverse clinical outcomes. Mortality was 42% in patients with excess FIO2 use, compared to 39% in a propensity-matched sample of normoxemic (PaO2 55-100 mmHg) patients (P = 0.47). Conclusions: Hyperoxemia and excess oxygen use are both prevalent in early ARDS but are most often non-sustained. No relationship was found between hyperoxemia or excessive oxygen use and patient outcome in this cohort. Trial registration: LUNG-SAFE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02010073publishersversionPeer reviewe

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Implementation Frameworks for Artificial Intelligence Translation Into Health Care Practice : Scoping Review

Background: Significant efforts have been made to develop artificial intelligence (AI) solutions for health care improvement. Despite the enthusiasm, health care professionals still struggle to implement AI in their daily practice. Objective: This paper aims to identify the implementation frameworks used to understand the application of AI in health care practice. Methods: A scoping review was conducted using the Cochrane, Evidence Based Medicine Reviews, Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases to identify publications that reported frameworks, models, and theories concerning AI implementation in health care. This review focused on studies published in English and investigating AI implementation in health care since 2000. A total of 2541 unique publications were retrieved from the databases and screened on titles and abstracts by 2 independent reviewers. Selected articles were thematically analyzed against the Nilsen taxonomy of implementation frameworks, and the Greenhalgh framework for the nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability (NASSS) of health care technologies. Results: In total, 7 articles met all eligibility criteria for inclusion in the review, and 2 articles included formal frameworks that directly addressed AI implementation, whereas the other articles provided limited descriptions of elements influencing implementation. Collectively, the 7 articles identified elements that aligned with all the NASSS domains, but no single article comprehensively considered the factors known to influence technology implementation. New domains were identified, including dependency on data input and existing processes, shared decision-making, the role of human oversight, and ethics of population impact and inequality, suggesting that existing frameworks do not fully consider the unique needs of AI implementation. Conclusions: This literature review demonstrates that understanding how to implement AI in health care practice is still in its early stages of development. Our findings suggest that further research is needed to provide the knowledge necessary to develop implementation frameworks to guide the future implementation of AI in clinical practice and highlight the opportunity to draw on existing knowledge from the field of implementation science. ©Fábio Gama, Daniel Tyskbo, Jens Nygren, James Barlow, Julie Reed, Petra Svedberg. Vinnova 2019-04526Knowledge Foundation 20200208 01

Challenges to implementing artificial intelligence in healthcare : a qualitative interview study with healthcare leaders in Sweden

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) for healthcare presents potential solutions to some of the challenges faced by health systems around the world. However, it is well established in implementation and innovation research that novel technologies are often resisted by healthcare leaders, which contributes to their slow and variable uptake. Although research on various stakeholders’ perspectives on AI implementation has been undertaken, very few studies have investigated leaders’ perspectives on the issue of AI implementation in healthcare. It is essential to understand the perspectives of healthcare leaders, because they have a key role in the implementation process of new technologies in healthcare. The aim of this study was to explore challenges perceived by leaders in a regional Swedish healthcare setting concerning the implementation of AI in healthcare. Methods: The study takes an explorative qualitative approach. Individual, semi-structured interviews were conducted from October 2020 to May 2021 with 26 healthcare leaders. The analysis was performed using qualitative content analysis, with an inductive approach. Results: The analysis yielded three categories, representing three types of challenge perceived to be linked with the implementation of AI in healthcare: 1) Conditions external to the healthcare system; 2) Capacity for strategic change management; 3) Transformation of healthcare professions and healthcare practice. Conclusions: In conclusion, healthcare leaders highlighted several implementation challenges in relation to AI within and beyond the healthcare system in general and their organisations in particular. The challenges comprised conditions external to the healthcare system, internal capacity for strategic change management, along with transformation of healthcare professions and healthcare practice. The results point to the need to develop implementation strategies across healthcare organisations to address challenges to AI-specific capacity building. Laws and policies are needed to regulate the design and execution of effective AI implementation strategies. There is a need to invest time and resources in implementation processes, with collaboration across healthcare, county councils, and industry partnerships. © The Author(s) 2022

A strategy to increase adoption of locally-produced, ceramic cookstoves in rural Kenyan households

Abstract Background Exposure to household air pollutants released during cooking has been linked to numerous adverse health outcomes among residents of rural areas in low-income countries. Improved cookstoves are one of few available interventions, but achieving equity in cookstove access has been challenging. Therefore, innovative approaches are needed. To evaluate a project designed to motivate adoption of locally-produced, ceramic cookstoves (upesi jiko) in an impoverished, rural African population, we assessed the perceived benefits of the cookstoves (in monetary and time-savings terms), the rate of cookstove adoption, and the equity of adoption. Methods The project was conducted in 60 rural Kenyan villages in 2008 and 2009. Baseline (n = 1250) and follow-up (n = 293) surveys and a stove-tracking database were analyzed. Results At baseline, nearly all respondents used wood (95%) and firepits (99%) for cooking; 98% desired smoke reductions. Households with upesi jiko subsequently spent upesi jiko (20%) (p = 0.0002). There were no significant differences in the presence of children upesi jiko (48%) or three-stone stoves (49%) (p = 0.88); children 2–5 years of age were less common in households using upesi jiko versus three-stone stoves (46% and 69%, respectively) (p = 0.0001). Vendors installed 1,124 upesi jiko in 757 multi-family households in 18 months; 68% of these transactions involved incentives for vendors and purchasers. Relatively few (upesi jiko were installed in households of women in the youngest age quartile ( Conclusions Our strategy of training of local vendors, appropriate incentives, and product integration effectively accelerated cookstove adoption into a large number of households. The strategy also created opportunities to reinforce health messages and promote cookstoves sales and installation. However, the project’s overall success was diminished by inequitable and incomplete adoption by households with the lowest socioeconomic status and young children present. Additional evaluations of similar strategies will be needed to determine whether our strategy can be applied equitably elsewhere, and whether reductions in fuel use, household air pollution, and the incidence of respiratory diseases will follow adoption of improved cookstoves.</p