Objectives To assess the diagnostic performances of chest CT for triage of patients in multiple emergency departments during COVID-19 epidemic, in comparison with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. Method From March 3 to April 4, 2020, 694 consecutive patients from three emergency departments of a large university hospital, for which a hospitalization was planned whatever the reasons, i.e., COVID-or non-COVID-related, underwent a chest CT and one or several RT-PCR tests. Chest CTs were rated as "Surely COVID+," "Possible COVID+," or "COVID−" by experienced radiologists. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated using the final RT-PCR test as standard of reference. The delays for CT reports and RT-PCR results were recorded and compared. Results Among the 694 patients, 287 were positive on the final RT-PCR exam. Concerning the 694 chest CT, 308 were rated as "Surely COVID+", 34 as "Possible COVID+," and 352 as "COVID−." When considering only the "Surely COVID+" CT as positive, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV reached 88.9%, 90.2%, 88%, 84.1%, and 92.7%, respectively, with respect to final RT-PCR test. The mean delay for CT reports was three times shorter than for RT-PCR results (187 ± 148 min versus 573 ± 327 min, p < 0.0001). Conclusion During COVID-19 epidemic phase, chest CT is a rapid and most probably an adequately reliable tool to refer patients requiring hospitalization to the COVID+ or COVID− hospital units, when response times for virological tests are too long. Key Points • In a large university hospital in Lyon, France, the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of chest CT for COVID-19 reached 88.9%, 90.2%, 88%, 84.1%, and 92.7%, respectively, using RT-PCR as standard of reference.

Decision support consists in helping a decision-maker to improve his/her decisions. However, clients requesting decision support are often themselves experts and are often taken by third parties and/or the general public to be responsible for the decisions they make. This predicament raises complex challenges for decision analysts, who have to avoid infringing upon the expertise and responsibility of the decision-maker. The case of diagnosis decision support in healthcare contexts is particularly illustrative. To support clinicians in their work and minimize the risk of medical error, various decision support systems have been developed, as part of information systems that are now ubiquitous in healthcare contexts. To develop, in collaboration with the hospitals of Lyon, a diagnostic decision support system for day-today customary consultations, we propose in this paper a critical analysis of current approaches to diagnostic decision support, which mainly consist in providing them with guidelines or even full-fledged diagnosis recommendations. We highlight that the use of such decision support systems by physicians raises responsibility issues, but also that it is at odds with the needs and constraints of customary consultations. We argue that the historical choice to favor guidelines or recommendations to physicians implies a very specific vision of what it means to support physicians, and we argue that the flaws of this vision partially ex-A.

In collaboration with the Civil Hospitals of Lyon, we aim to develop a "transparent" classification system for medical purposes. To do so, we need clear definitions and operational criteria to determine what is a "transparent" classification system in our context. However, the term "transparency" is often left undefined in the literature, and there is a lack of operational criteria allowing to check whether a given algorithm deserves to be called "transparent" or not. Therefore, in this paper, we propose a definition of "transparency" for classification systems in medical contexts. We also propose several operational criteria to evaluate whether a classification system can be considered "transparent". We apply these operational criteria to evaluate the "transparency" of several well-known classification systems.

No abstract

No abstract

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers. L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.