A Novel Deep Learning Model as a Donor-Recipient Matching Tool to Predict Survival after Liver Transplantation

Background: The digital era in the field of medicine is the new here and now. Artificial intelligence has entered many fields of medicine and is recently emerging in the field of organ transplantation. Solid organs remain a scarce resource. Being able to predict the outcome after liver transplantation promises to solve one of the long-standing problems within organ transplantation. What is the perfect donor recipient match? Within this work we developed and validated a novel deep-learning-based donor-recipient allocation system for liver transplantation. Method: In this study we used data collected from all liver transplant patients between 2004 and 2019 at the university transplantation centre in Munich. We aimed to design a transparent and interpretable deep learning framework to predict the outcome after liver transplantation. An individually designed neural network was developed to meet the unique requirements of transplantation data. The metrics used to determine the model quality and its level of performance are accuracy, cross-entropy loss, and F1 score as well as AUC score. Results: A total of 529 transplantations with a total of 1058 matching donor and recipient observations were added into the database. The combined prediction of all outcome parameters was 95.8% accurate (cross-entropy loss of 0.042). The prediction of death within the hospital was 94.3% accurate (cross-entropy loss of 0.057). The overall F1 score was 0.899 on average, whereas the overall AUC score was 0.940. Conclusion: With the achieved results, the network serves as a reliable tool to predict survival. It adds new insight into the potential of deep learning to assist medical decisions. Especially in the field of transplantation, an AUC Score of 94% is very valuable. This neuronal network is unique as it utilizes transparent and easily interpretable data to predict the outcome after liver transplantation. Further validation must be performed prior to utilization in a clinical context

International consensus on the most useful physical examination tests used by physiotherapists for patients with headache: A Delphi study

Background: A wide range of physical tests have been published for use in the assessment of musculoskeletal dysfunction in patients with headache. Which tests are used depends on a physiotherapist's clinical and scientific background as there is little guidance on the most clinically useful tests. Objectives: To identify which physical examination tests international experts in physiotherapy consider the most clinically useful for the assessment of patients with headache. Design/methods: Delphi survey with pre-specified procedures based on a systematic search of the literature for physical examination tests proposed for the assessment of musculoskeletal dysfunction in patients with headache. Results: Seventeen experts completed all three rounds of the survey. Fifteen tests were included in round one with eleven additional tests suggested by the experts. Finally eleven physical examination tests were considered clinically useful: manual joint palpation, the cranio-cervical flexion test, the cervical flexion-rotation test, active range of cervical movement, head forward position, trigger point palpation, muscle tests of the shoulder girdle, passive physiological intervertebral movements, reproduction and resolution of headache symptoms, screening of the thoracic spine, and combined movement tests. Conclusions: Eleven tests are suggested as a minimum standard for the physical examination of musculoskeletal dysfunctions in patients with headache

“It feels like someone is hammering my feet”: Understanding pain and its management from the perspective of people with Multiple Sclerosis

Background: Pain affects around 63% of people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS). Biomedical treatments demonstrate limited efficacy. More research is needed to understand pain from the individual’s perspective in order to better inform a patient-centred approach that improves engagement, self-management and outcome. Objective: The objective of this paper is to explore pwMS’ experience and responses to pain, and their perspectives on pain management. Methods: Twenty-five in-depth, semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed and analysed using an inductive thematic analysis approach with elements of grounded theory. Results: Key themes included vivid descriptions of pain and beliefs that pain is unpredictable, a sign of damage and may worsen. Anger was a common emotional response. Two dominant pain management themes emerged: one related to pain reduction and another to acceptance. Those focusing on pain reduction appeared to engage in cycles in which they struggled with symptoms and experienced continued distress. Conclusion: Findings identify pain-related beliefs, emotional reactions and disparate pain-management attitudes. All may influence pwMS’ responses to pain and what they ask of their clinicians. Uncovering pwMS’ personal beliefs about pain, and introducing a broader biopsychosocial understanding of pain in the clinical context, may provide opportunities to rectify potentially unhelpful management choices and enhance pain acceptance

Cervicogenic Headache: Results of Computer-based Measurements of Cervical Spine Mobility in 15 Patients.

Head and neck pain are often attributed to impaired mobility of the cervical spine. No established methods exist to examine such an impaired mobility objectively in patients with cervicogenic headache. Therefore, functional roentgenograms of the cervical spine in maximum ventral and dorsal flexion were analyzed in 15 patients with cervicogenic headache and in 18 controls. Qualitative radiologic evaluation showed no significant differences in either group. A computer-based technique to assess the mobility of the cervical spine demonstrated a statistically pronounced hypomobility of the craniocervical joints C0/C2 and an impaired overall mobility of the upper cervical spine (C0-C5) in the cervicogenic headache group. The most evident hypomotility was found in segment C0/C1. Interesting was, furthermore, a probably compensatory hypermotility in segment C6/C7. These findings did not correlate with the results of the qualitative radiologic evaluation