Machine learning is frequently being leveraged to tackle problems in the health sector including utilization for clinical decision-support. Its use has historically been focused on single modal data. Attempts to improve prediction and mimic the multimodal nature of clinical expert decision-making has been met in the biomedical field of machine learning by fusing disparate data. This review was conducted to summarize the current studies in this field and identify topics ripe for future research. We conducted this review in accordance with the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews to characterize multi-modal data fusion in health. Search strings were established and used in databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, and IEEEXplore from 2011 to 2021. A final set of 128 articles were included in the analysis. The most common health areas utilizing multi-modal methods were neurology and oncology. Early fusion was the most common data merging strategy. Notably, there was an improvement in predictive performance when using data fusion. Lacking from the papers were clear clinical deployment strategies, FDA-approval, and analysis of how using multimodal approaches from diverse sub-populations may improve biases and healthcare disparities. These findings provide a summary on multimodal data fusion as applied to health diagnosis/prognosis problems. Few papers compared the outputs of a multimodal approach with a unimodal prediction. However, those that did achieved an average increase of 6.4% in predictive accuracy. Multi-modal machine learning, while more robust in its estimations over unimodal methods, has drawbacks in its scalability and the time-consuming nature of information concatenation.

Accurate, automated extraction of clinical stroke information from unstructured text has several important applications. ICD-9/10 codes can misclassify ischemic stroke events and do not distinguish acuity or location. Expeditious, accurate data extraction could provide considerable improvement in identifying stroke in large datasets, triaging critical clinical reports, and quality improvement efforts. In this study, we developed and report a comprehensive framework studying the performance of simple and complex stroke-specific Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Machine Learning (ML) methods to determine presence, location, and acuity of ischemic stroke from radiographic text. We collected 60,564 Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Radiology reports from 17,864 patients from two large academic medical centers. We used standard techniques to featurize unstructured text and developed neurovascular specific word GloVe embeddings. We trained various binary classification algorithms to identify stroke presence, location, and acuity using 75% of 1,359 expert-labeled reports. We validated our methods internally on the remaining 25% of reports and externally on 500 radiology reports from an entirely separate academic institution. In our internal population, GloVe word embeddings paired with deep learning (Recurrent Neural Networks) had the best discrimination of all methods for our three tasks (AUCs of 0.96, 0.98, 0.93 respectively). Simpler NLP approaches (Bag of Words) performed best with interpretable algorithms (Logistic Regression) for identifying ischemic stroke (AUC of 0.95), MCA location (AUC 0.96), and acuity (AUC of 0.90). Similarly, GloVe and Recurrent Neural Networks (AUC 0.92, 0.89, 0.93) generalized better in our external test set than BOW and Logistic Regression for stroke presence, location and acuity, respectively (AUC 0.89, 0.86, 0.80). Our study demonstrates a comprehensive assessment of NLP techniques for unstructured radiographic text. Our findings are

Background Admissions are generally classified as COVID-19 hospitalizations if the patient has a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. However, because 35% of SARS-CoV-2 infections are asymptomatic, patients admitted for unrelated indications with an incidentally positive test could be misclassified as a COVID-19 hospitalization. Electronic health record (EHR)–based studies have been unable to distinguish between a hospitalization specifically for COVID-19 versus an incidental SARS-CoV-2 hospitalization. Although the need to improve classification of COVID-19 versus incidental SARS-CoV-2 is well understood, the magnitude of the problems has only been characterized in small, single-center studies. Furthermore, there have been no peer-reviewed studies evaluating methods for improving classification. Objective The aims of this study are to, first, quantify the frequency of incidental hospitalizations over the first 15 months of the pandemic in multiple hospital systems in the United States and, second, to apply electronic phenotyping techniques to automatically improve COVID-19 hospitalization classification. Methods From a retrospective EHR-based cohort in 4 US health care systems in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Illinois, a random sample of 1123 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive patients hospitalized from March 2020 to August 2021 was manually chart-reviewed and classified as “admitted with COVID-19” (incidental) versus specifically admitted for COVID-19 (“for COVID-19”). EHR-based phenotyping was used to find feature sets to filter out incidental admissions. Results EHR-based phenotyped feature sets filtered out incidental admissions, which occurred in an average of 26% of hospitalizations (although this varied widely over time, from 0% to 75%). The top site-specific feature sets had 79%-99% specificity with 62%-75% sensitivity, while the best-performing across-site feature sets had 71%-94% specificity with 69%-81% sensitivity. Conclusions A large proportion of SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive admissions were incidental. Straightforward EHR-based phenotypes differentiated admissions, which is important to assure accurate public health reporting and research.

Introduction The Consortium for Clinical Characterization of COVID-19 by EHR (4CE) is an international collaboration addressing COVID-19 with federated analyses of electronic health record (EHR) data. Objective We sought to develop and validate a computable phenotype for COVID-19 severity. Methods Twelve 4CE sites participated. First we developed an EHR-based severity phenotype consisting of six code classes, and we validated it on patient hospitalization data from the 12 4CE clinical sites against the outcomes of ICU admission and/or death. We also piloted an alternative machine-learning approach and compared selected predictors of severity to the 4CE phenotype at one site. Results The full 4CE severity phenotype had pooled sensitivity of 0.73 and specificity 0.83 for the combined outcome of ICU admission and/or death. The sensitivity of individual code categories for acuity had high variability - up to 0.65 across sites. At one pilot site, the expert-derived phenotype had mean AUC 0.903 (95% CI: 0.886, 0.921), compared to AUC 0.956 (95% CI: 0.952, 0.959) for the machine-learning approach. Billing codes were poor proxies of ICU admission, with as low as 49% precision and recall compared to chart review. Discussion We developed a severity phenotype using 6 code classes that proved resilient to coding variability across international institutions. In contrast, machine-learning approaches may overfit hospital-specific orders. Manual chart review revealed discrepancies even in the gold-standard outcomes, possibly due to heterogeneous pandemic conditions. Conclusion We developed an EHR-based severity phenotype for COVID-19 in hospitalized patients and validated it at 12 international sites.

This cohort study aims to describe international hospitalization trends and key epidemiological and clinical features of children and youth with COVID-19.

Ambient light levels impact pupil parameters in both healthy and critically ill subjects. Changes in NPi under different light conditions are small and more consistent in healthy subjects, but significantly differ in the critically ill. Practitioners should standardize lighting conditions to maximize measurement reliability.

Background The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 (ie, COVID-19) has given rise to a global pandemic affecting 215 countries and over 40 million people as of October 2020. Meanwhile, we are also experiencing an infodemic induced by the overabundance of information, some accurate and some inaccurate, spreading rapidly across social media platforms. Social media has arguably shifted the information acquisition and dissemination of a considerably large population of internet users toward higher interactivities. Objective This study aimed to investigate COVID-19-related health beliefs on one of the mainstream social media platforms, Twitter, as well as potential impacting factors associated with fluctuations in health beliefs on social media. Methods We used COVID-19-related posts from the mainstream social media platform Twitter to monitor health beliefs. A total of 92,687,660 tweets corresponding to 8,967,986 unique users from January 6 to June 21, 2020, were retrieved. To quantify health beliefs, we employed the health belief model (HBM) with four core constructs: perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, perceived benefits, and perceived barriers. We utilized natural language processing and machine learning techniques to automate the process of judging the conformity of each tweet with each of the four HBM constructs. A total of 5000 tweets were manually annotated for training the machine learning architectures. Results The machine learning classifiers yielded areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves over 0.86 for the classification of all four HBM constructs. Our analyses revealed a basic reproduction number R0 of 7.62 for trends in the number of Twitter users posting health belief–related content over the study period. The fluctuations in the number of health belief–related tweets could reflect dynamics in case and death statistics, systematic interventions, and public events. Specifically, we observed that scientific events, such as scientific publications, and nonscientific events, such as politicians’ speeches, were comparable in their ability to influence health belief trends on social media through a Kruskal-Wallis test (P=.78 and P=.92 for perceived benefits and perceived barriers, respectively). Conclusions As an analogy of the classic epidemiology model where an infection is considered to be spreading in a population with an R0 greater than 1, we found that the number of users tweeting about COVID-19 health beliefs was amplifying in an epidemic manner and could partially intensify the infodemic. It is “unhealthy” that both scientific and nonscientific events constitute no disparity in impacting the health belief trends on Twitter, since nonscientific events, such as politicians’ speeches, might not be endorsed by substantial evidence and could sometimes be misleading.

No abstract