OBJECTIVE: We discuss implications of potential ascertainment biases for studies examining diabetes risk following SARS-CoV-2 infection using electronic health records (EHRs). We quantitatively explore sensitivity of results to misclassification of COVID-19 status using data from the U.S.-based Diabetes in Children, Adolescents and Young Adults (DiCAYA) Network on children (≤17 years) and young adults (18-44 years). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In our retrospective case study from the DiCAYA Network, SARS-CoV-2 was identified using labs and diagnoses from June 1, 2020 to December 31, 2021. Patients were followed through December 31, 2022 for new diabetes diagnoses. Sites examined incident diabetes by COVID-19 status using Cox proportional hazards models. Results were pooled in meta-analyses. A bias analysis examined potential impact of COVID-19 misclassification scenarios on results, guided by hypotheses that sensitivity would be <50% and would be higher among those who developed diabetes. RESULTS: Prevalence of documented COVID-19 was low overall and variable across sites (children: 4.4%-7.7%, young adults: 6.2%-22.7%). Individuals with documented COVID-19 were at higher risk of incident diabetes compared to those with no documented infection, but results were heterogeneous across sites. Findings were highly sensitive to COVID-19 misclassification assumptions. Observed results could be biased away from the null under several differential misclassification scenarios. DISCUSSION: Although EHR-based documentation of COVID-19 was associated with incident diabetes, COVID-19 phenotypes likely had low sensitivity, with considerable variation across sites. Misclassification assumptions strongly impacted interpretation of results. CONCLUSION: Given the potential for low phenotype sensitivity and misclassification, caution is warranted when interpreting analyses of COVID-19 and incident diabetes using clinical or administrative databases.

We introduce RMP-YOLO, a unified framework designed to provide robust motion predictions even with incomplete input data. Our key insight stems from the observation that complete and reliable historical trajectory data plays a pivotal role in ensuring accurate motion prediction. Therefore, we propose a new paradigm that prioritizes the reconstruction of intact historical trajectories before feeding them into the prediction modules. Our approach introduces a novel scene tokenization module to enhance the extraction and fusion of spatial and temporal features. Following this, our proposed recovery module reconstructs agents' incomplete historical trajectories by leveraging local map topology and interactions with nearby agents. The reconstructed, clean historical data is then integrated into the downstream prediction modules. Our framework is able to effectively handle missing data of varying lengths and remains robust against observation noise while maintaining high prediction accuracy. Furthermore, our recovery module is compatible with existing prediction models, ensuring seamless integration. Extensive experiments validate the effectiveness of our approach, and deployment in real-world autonomous vehicles confirms its practical utility. In the 2024 Waymo Motion Prediction Competition, our method, RMP-YOLO, achieves state-of-the-art performance, securing third place. Our code is open-source at https://github.com/ggosjw/RMP-YOLO.

How to deliver best care in various clinical settings remains a vexing problem. All pertinent healthcare-related questions have not, cannot, and will not be addressable with costly time- and resource-consuming controlled clinical trials. At present, evidence-based guidelines can address only a small fraction of the types of care that clinicians deliver. Furthermore, underserved areas rarely can access state-of-the-art evidence-based guidelines in real-time, and often lack the wherewithal to implement advanced guidelines. Care providers in such settings frequently do not have sufficient training to undertake advanced guideline implementation. Nevertheless, in advanced modern healthcare delivery environments, use of eActions (validated clinical decision support systems) could help overcome the cognitive limitations of overburdened clinicians. Widespread use of eActions will require surmounting current healthcare technical and cultural barriers and installing clinical evidence/data curation systems. The authors expect that increased numbers of evidence-based guidelines will result from future comparative effectiveness clinical research carried out during routine healthcare delivery within learning healthcare systems.

Clinical decision-making is based on knowledge, expertise, and authority, with clinicians approving almost every intervention-the starting point for delivery of "All the right care, but only the right care," an unachieved healthcare quality improvement goal. Unaided clinicians suffer from human cognitive limitations and biases when decisions are based only on their training, expertise, and experience. Electronic health records (EHRs) could improve healthcare with robust decision-support tools that reduce unwarranted variation of clinician decisions and actions. Current EHRs, focused on results review, documentation, and accounting, are awkward, time-consuming, and contribute to clinician stress and burnout. Decision-support tools could reduce clinician burden and enable replicable clinician decisions and actions that personalize patient care. Most current clinical decision-support tools or aids lack detail and neither reduce burden nor enable replicable actions. Clinicians must provide subjective interpretation and missing logic, thus introducing personal biases and mindless, unwarranted, variation from evidence-based practice. Replicability occurs when different clinicians, with the same patient information and context, come to the same decision and action. We propose a feasible subset of therapeutic decision-support tools based on credible clinical outcome evidence: computer protocols leading to replicable clinician actions (eActions). eActions enable different clinicians to make consistent decisions and actions when faced with the same patient input data. eActions embrace good everyday decision-making informed by evidence, experience, EHR data, and individual patient status. eActions can reduce unwarranted variation, increase quality of clinical care and research, reduce EHR noise, and could enable a learning healthcare system.

OBJECTIVE: Develop an efficient non-clinical method for identifying promising computer-based protocols for clinical study. An in silico comparison can provide information that informs the decision to proceed to a clinical trial. The authors compared two existing computer-based insulin infusion protocols: eProtocol-insulin from Utah, USA, and Glucosafe from Denmark. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors used eProtocol-insulin to manage intensive care unit (ICU) hyperglycemia with intravenous (IV) insulin from 2004 to 2010. Recommendations accepted by the bedside clinicians directly link the subsequent blood glucose values to eProtocol-insulin recommendations and provide a unique clinical database. The authors retrospectively compared in silico 18,984 eProtocol-insulin continuous IV insulin infusion rate recommendations from 408 ICU patients with those of Glucosafe, the candidate computer-based protocol. The subsequent blood glucose measurement value (low, on target, high) was used to identify if the insulin recommendation was too high, on target, or too low. RESULTS: Glucosafe consistently provided more favorable continuous IV insulin infusion rate recommendations than eProtocol-insulin for on target (64% of comparisons), low (80% of comparisons), or high (70% of comparisons) blood glucose. Aggregated eProtocol-insulin and Glucosafe continuous IV insulin infusion rates were clinically similar though statistically significantly different (Wilcoxon signed rank test P = .01). In contrast, when stratified by low, on target, or high subsequent blood glucose measurement, insulin infusion rates from eProtocol-insulin and Glucosafe were statistically significantly different (Wilcoxon signed rank test, P < .001), and clinically different. DISCUSSION: This in silico comparison appears to be an efficient nonclinical method for identifying promising computer-based protocols. CONCLUSION: Preclinical in silico comparison analytical framework allows rapid and inexpensive identification of computer-based protocol care strategies that justify expensive and burdensome clinical trials.