Citations

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to establish a set of guiding principles for data sharing and harmonization in critical care, focusing on the use of real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) to improve patient outcomes and research efficacy. The principles were developed through a systematic literature review and a modified Delphi process, with the goal of enhancing data accessibility, standardization, and interoperability across critical care settings. DATA SOURCES: Data sources included a comprehensive search of peer-reviewed literature, specifically studies related to the use of RWD and RWE in healthcare, guidelines, best practices, and recommendations on data sharing and harmonization. A total of 8150 articles were initially identified through databases such as MEDLINE and Web of Science, with 257 studies meeting inclusion criteria. STUDY SELECTION: Inclusion criteria focused on publications discussing health-related informatics, recommendations for RWD/RWE usage, data sharing, and harmonization principles. Exclusion criteria ruled out non-human studies, case studies, conference abstracts, and articles published before 2013, as well as those not available in English. DATA EXTRACTION: From the 257 selected studies, 322 statements were extracted. After removing irrelevant definitions and off-topic content, 232 statements underwent content validation and thematic analysis. These statements were then consolidated into 24 candidate guiding principles after rigorous review and consensus-building among the expert panel. DATA SYNTHESIS: A three-phase modified Delphi process was employed, involving a conceptualization group, a review group, and a Delphi group. In phase 1, experts identified key themes and search terms for the systematic review. Phase 2 involved validating and refining the prospective guiding principles, while phase 3 employed a Delphi panel to rate principles on acceptability, importance, and feasibility. This process resulted in 24 guiding principles, with high consensus achieved in rounds 2 and 3 on their relevance and applicability. CONCLUSIONS: The systematic review and Delphi process resulted in 24 guiding principles to improve data sharing and harmonization in critical care. These principles address challenges across the data lifecycle, including generation, storage, access, and usage of RWD and RWE. This framework is designed to promote more effective and equitable data practices, with relevance for the development of artificial intelligence-based decision support tools and clinical research. The principles are intended to guide the responsible use of data science in critical care, with emphasis on ethics and equity, while acknowledging the variability of resources across settings.

OBJECTIVES: To develop the first core Critical Care Data Dictionary (C2D2) with common data elements (CDEs) to characterize critical illness and injuries. DESIGN: Group consensus process using modified Delphi approach. SETTING: Electronic surveys and in-person meetings. SUBJECTS: A multidisciplinary workgroup of clinicians and researchers with expertise in the care of the critically ill and injured. INTERVENTIONS: The Delphi process was divided into domain and CDE portions with each composed of two item generation rounds and one item reduction/refinement rounds. Two in-person meetings augmented this process to facilitate review and consideration of the domains and by panel members. The final set of domains and CDEs was then reviewed by the group to meet the competing criteria of utility and feasibility, resulting in the core dataset. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The 23-member Delphi panel was provided 1833 candidate variables for potential dataset inclusion. The final dataset includes 226 patient-level CDCs in nine domains, which include anthropometrics and demographics (8), chronic comorbid illnesses (18), advanced directives (1), ICU diagnoses (61), diagnostic tests (42), interventions (27), medications (38), objective assessments (26), and hospital course and outcomes (5). Upon final review, 91% of the panel endorsed the CDCs as meeting criteria for a minimum viable data dictionary. Data elements cross the lifespan of neonate through adult patients. CONCLUSIONS: The resulting C2D2 provides a foundation to facilitate rapid collection, analyses, and dissemination of information necessary for research, quality improvement, and clinical practice to optimize critical care outcomes. Further work is needed to validate the effectiveness of the dataset in a variety of critical care settings.

Abstract The chain specificities of 18 Ak and 26 Ab-reactive anti-Ia monoclonal antibodies have been determined. L cells were transfected with haplotype-matched (A alpha k:A beta k, A alpha b:A beta b) or haplotype-mismatched (A alpha k:A beta b, A alpha b:A beta k) cDNA pairs, lines expressing high levels of surface A complex were selected, and antibody reactivity with a panel of reagents was assessed by cytofluorimetric analysis. Most of the antibodies recognized a determinant specified by one chain, either alpha or (more commonly) beta. A few examples of more complex determinants were also observed. A knowledge of the chain specificities of anti-Ia monoclonal antibodies should prove useful for a variety of studies aimed at dissecting Ia structure-function relationships.

Purpose To compare American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC), International Union Against Cancer (UICC), and Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) tumor (T) staging systems for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma and validate BWH staging against prior data. Patients and Methods Primary tumors diagnosed from 2000 to 2009 at BWH (n = 1,818) were analyzed. Poor outcomes (local recurrence [LR], nodal metastasis [NM], and disease-specific death [DSD]) were analyzed by T stage with regard to each staging system's distinctiveness (outcome differences between stages), homogeneity (outcome similarity within stages), and monotonicity (outcome worsening with increasing stage). Results AJCC and UICC T3 and T4 were indistinct with overlapping 95% CIs for 10-year cumulative incidences of poor outcomes, but all four BWH stages were distinct. AJCC and UICC high-stage tumors (T3/T4) were rare at 0.3% and 3% of the cohort, respectively. Most poor outcomes occurred in low stages (T1/T2; AJCC: 86% [95% CI, 77% to 91%]; UICC: 70% [61% to 79%]) resulting in heterogeneous outcomes in T1/T2. Conversely, in BWH staging, only 5% of tumors were high stage (T2b/T3), but they accounted for 60% (95% CI, 50% to 69%) of poor outcomes (70% of NMs and 83% of DSDs) indicating superior homogeneity and monotonicity as previously defined. Cumulative incidences of poor outcomes were low for BWH low-stage (T1/T2a) tumors (LR, 1.4% [95% CI, 1% to 2%]; NM, 0.6% [95% CI, 0% to 1%]; DSD, 0.2% [95% CI, 0% to 0.5%]) and higher for high-stage (T2b/T3) tumors (LR, 28% [95% CI, 19% to 38%]; NM, 25% [95% CI, 16% to 35%]; and DSD, 22% [95% CI, 13% to 34%]), which validated an earlier study of an alternative staging system. Conclusion BWH staging offers improved distinctiveness, homogeneity, and monotonicity over AJCC and UICC staging. Population-based validation is needed. BWH T2b/T3 tumors define a high-risk group requiring further study for optimal management.

To identify which polymorphic residues determine the allospecific antibody binding sites on A beta polypeptides, mutant Ak beta genes were constructed encoding single or multiple amino acids of the d allele at 14 polymorphic positions in the beta 1 domain. Cell lines expressing these genes were analyzed by quantitative immunofluorescence using 16 mAbs reactive to Ak beta or Ad beta. Substitution of d allele residues at positions 63 and 65-67 in the Ak beta polypeptide resulted in the loss of binding of all Ak beta-reactive antibodies and the gain of binding of most Ad beta-reactive antibodies. Two Ad beta-reactive mAbs bound to the mutant Ak beta polypeptide containing d allele-characteristic residue at position 40. In contrast, substitution of the other polymorphic residues in the NH2-terminal and COOH-terminal regions of the beta 1 domain did not alter antibody binding.