Lipatov, Kirill

Pulmonary auscultation is essential for detecting abnormal lung sounds during physical assessments, but its reliability depends on the operator. Machine learning (ML) models offer an alternative by automatically classifying lung sounds. ML models require substantial data, and public databases aim to address this limitation. This systematic review compares characteristics, diagnostic accuracy, concerns, and data sources of existing models in the literature. Papers published from five major databases between 1990 and 2022 were assessed. Quality assessment was accomplished with a modified QUADAS-2 tool. The review encompassed 62 studies utilizing ML models and public-access databases for lung sound classification. Artificial neural networks (ANN) and support vector machines (SVM) were frequently employed in the ML classifiers. The accuracy ranged from 49.43% to 100% for discriminating abnormal sound types and 69.40% to 99.62% for disease class classification. Seventeen public databases were identified, with the ICBHI 2017 database being the most used (66%). The majority of studies exhibited a high risk of bias and concerns related to patient selection and reference standards. Summarizing, ML models can effectively classify abnormal lung sounds using publicly available data sources. Nevertheless, inconsistent reporting and methodologies pose limitations to advancing the field, and therefore, public databases should adhere to standardized recording and labeling procedures.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether a novel acute care multipatient viewer (AMP), created with an understanding of clinician information and process requirements, could reduce time to clinical decision-making among clinicians caring for populations of acutely ill patients compared with a widely used commercial electronic medical record (EMR). DESIGN: Single center randomized crossover study. SETTING: Quaternary care academic hospital. SUBJECTS: Attending and in-training critical care physicians, and advanced practice providers. INTERVENTIONS: AMP. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We compared ICU clinician performance in structured clinical task completion using two electronic environments—the standard commercial EMR (Epic) versus the novel AMP in addition to Epic. Twenty subjects (10 pairs of clinicians) participated in the study. During the study session, each participant completed the tasks on two ICUs (7–10 beds each) and eight individual patients. The adjusted time for assessment of the entire ICU and the adjusted total time to task completion were significantly lower using AMP versus standard commercial EMR (–6.11; 95% CI, –7.91 to –4.30 min and –5.38; 95% CI, –7.56 to –3.20 min, respectively; p < 0.001). The adjusted time for assessment of individual patients was similar using both the EMR and AMP (0.73; 95% CI, –0.09 to 1.54 min; p = 0.078). AMP was associated with a significantly lower adjusted task load (National Aeronautics and Space Administration-Task Load Index) among clinicians performing the task versus the standard EMR (22.6; 95% CI, –32.7 to –12.4 points; p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in adjusted total errors when comparing the two environments (0.68; 95% CI, 0.36–1.30; p = 0.078). CONCLUSIONS: When compared with the standard EMR, AMP significantly reduced time to assessment of an entire ICU, total time to clinical task completion, and clinician task load. Additional research is needed to assess the clinicians’ performance while using AMP in the live ICU setting.