Search

Artificial intelligence (AI) offers a wealth of opportunities for medicine, if we also bear in mind the risks associated with this technology. In recent years the potential future integration of AI with medicine has been the subject of much debate, although practical clinical experience of relevant cases is still largely absent. This case study examines a particular patient’s experience with different forms of care. Initially, the patient communicated with the conversation (chat) based AI (CAI) for self-treatment. However, over time she found herself increasingly drawn to a low-threshold internal company support system that is grounded in an existing, more traditional human-based care structure. This pattern of treatment May represent a useful addition to existing care structures, particularly for patients receptive to technology.

BackgroundConsumer-grade fitness trackers offer exciting opportunities to study persons with chronic diseases in greater detail and in their daily-life environment. However, attempts to bring fitness tracker measurement campaigns from tightly controlled clinical environments to home settings are often challenged by deteriorating study compliance or by organizational and resource limitations.ObjectivesBy revisiting the study design and patient-reported experiences of a partly remote study with fitness trackers (BarKA-MS study), we aimed to qualitatively explore the relationship between overall study compliance and scalability. On that account, we aimed to derive lessons learned on strengths, weaknesses, and technical challenges for the conduct of future studies.MethodsThe two-phased BarKA-MS study employed Fitbit Inspire HR and electronic surveys to monitor physical activity in 45 people with multiple sclerosis in a rehabilitation setting and in their natural surroundings at home for up to 8 weeks. We examined and quantified the recruitment and compliance in terms of questionnaire completion and device wear time. Furthermore, we qualitatively evaluated experiences with devices according to participants' survey-collected reports. Finally, we reviewed the BarKA-MS study conduct characteristics for its scalability according to the Intervention Scalability Assessment Tool checklist.ResultsWeekly electronic surveys completion reached 96%. On average, the Fitbit data revealed 99% and 97% valid wear days at the rehabilitation clinic and in the home setting, respectively. Positive experiences with the device were predominant: only 17% of the feedbacks had a negative connotation, mostly pertaining to perceived measurement inaccuracies. Twenty-five major topics and study characteristics relating to compliance were identified. They broadly fell into the three categories: “effectiveness of support measures”, “recruitment and compliance barriers”, and “technical challenges”. The scalability assessment revealed that the highly individualized support measures, which contributed greatly to the high study compliance, may face substantial scalability challenges due to the strong human involvement and limited potential for standardization.ConclusionThe personal interactions and highly individualized participant support positively influenced study compliance and retention. But the major human involvement in these support actions will pose scalability challenges due to resource limitations. Study conductors should anticipate this potential compliance-scalability trade-off already in the design phase.

BackgroundPhysical activity (PA) is reduced in persons with multiple sclerosis (MS), though it is known to aid in symptom and fatigue management. Methods for measuring PA are diverse and the impact of this heterogeneity on study outcomes is unclear. We aimed to clarify this impact by comparing common methods for deriving PA metrics in MS populations.MethodsFirst, a rapid review of existing literature identified methods for calculating PA in studies which used the Actigraph GT3X in populations with MS. We then compared methods in a prospective study on 42 persons with MS [EDSS 4.5 (3.5–6)] during a voluntary course of inpatient neurorehabilitation. Mixed-effects linear regression identified methodological factors which influenced PA measurements. Non-parametric hypothesis tests, correlations, and agreement statistics assessed overall and pairwise differences between methods.ResultsIn the rapid review, searches identified 421 unique records. Sixty-nine records representing 51 eligible studies exhibited substantial heterogeneity in methodology and reporting practices. In a subsequent comparative study, multiple methods for deriving six PA metrics (step count, activity counts, total time in PA, sedentary time, time in light PA, time in moderate to vigorous PA), were identified and directly compared. All metrics were sensitive to methodological factors such as the selected preprocessing filter, data source (vertical vs. vector magnitude counts), and cutpoint. Additionally, sedentary time was sensitive to wear time definitions. Pairwise correlation and agreement between methods varied from weak (minimum correlation: 0.15, minimum agreement: 0.03) to perfect (maximum correlation: 1.00, maximum agreement: 1.00). Methodological factors biased both point estimates of PA and correlations between PA and clinical assessments.ConclusionsMethodological heterogeneity of existing literature is high, and this heterogeneity may confound studies which use the Actigraph GT3X. Step counts were highly sensitive to the filter used to process raw accelerometer data. Sedentary time was particularly sensitive to methodology, and we recommend using total time in PA instead. Several, though not all, methods for deriving light PA and moderate to vigorous PA yielded nearly identical results. PA metrics based on vertical axis counts tended to outperform those based on vector magnitude counts. Additional research is needed to establish the relative validity of existing methods.