Eugenia Lee

In the world of clinic treatments, 3D-printed tissue constructs have emerged as a less invasive treatment method for various ailments. Printing processes, scaffold and scaffold free materials, cells used, and imaging for analysis are all factors that must be observed in order to develop successful 3D tissue constructs for clinical applications. However, current research in 3D bioprinting model development lacks diverse methods of successful vascularization as a result of issues with scaling, size, and variations in printing method. This study analyzes the methods of printing, bioinks used, and analysis techniques in 3D bioprinting for vascularization. These methods are discussed and evaluated to determine the most optimal strategies of 3D bioprinting for successful vascularization. Integrating stem and endothelial cells in prints, selecting the type of bioink according to its physical properties, and choosing a printing method according to physical properties of the desired printed tissue are steps that will aid in the successful development of a bioprinted tissue and its vascularization.

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are self-reporting tools that can measure important information about patients, such as health priorities, experience, and perception of outcome. The use of traditional objective measures such as vital signs and lab values can be supplemented with these self-reported patient measures to provide a more complete picture of a patient’s health status. Machine learning, the use of computer algorithms that improve automatically through experience, is a powerful tool in health care that often does not use subjective information shared by patients. However, machine learning has largely been based on objective measures and has been developed without patient or public input. Algorithms often do not have access to critical information from patients and may be missing priorities and measures that matter to patients. Combining objective measures with patient-reported measures can improve the ability of machine learning algorithms to assess patients’ health status and improve the delivery of health care. Objective: The objective of this scoping review is to identify gaps and benefits in the way machine learning is integrated with patient-reported outcomes for the development of improved public and patient partnerships in research and health care. Methods: We reviewed the following 3 questions to learn from existing literature about the reported gaps and best methods for combining machine learning and patient-reported outcomes: (1) How are the public engaged as involved partners in the development of artificial intelligence in medicine? (2) What examples of good practice can we identify for the integration of PROMs into machine learning algorithms? (3) How has value-based health care influenced the development of artificial intelligence in health care? We searched Ovid MEDLINE(R), Embase, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index, Cochrane Library, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects in addition to PROSPERO and the ClinicalTrials website. The authors will use Covidence to screen titles and abstracts and to conduct the review. We will include systematic reviews and overviews published in any language and may explore additional study types. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies are included in the reviews. Results: The search is completed, and Covidence software will be used to work collaboratively. We will report the review using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme for systematic reviews. Conclusions: Findings from our review will help us identify examples of good practice for how to involve the public in the development of machine learning systems as well as interventions and outcomes that have used PROMs and PREMs. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/36395

Background: Distal triceps ruptures are rare, and complete ruptures are commonly treated with surgery. Studies of patients in small cohorts with distal triceps tear have reported outcomes and risk factors; however, large-scale data are scant. This study seeks to determine current trends, outcomes, and risk factors of distal triceps tears. Methods: Within a large insurance claims database, distal triceps repair patients were identified through Current Procedural Terminology coding with concomitant distal triceps International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision/10th Revision diagnosis codes and 1-year active status before and after surgery. Demographics, total costs, 90-day complications, and revision rates within 1 year of index surgery were analyzed. Logistic regression was performed for revision and complication rates using sex, age, and comorbidities (anabolic steroid use, diabetes, ischemic heart disease, tobacco use, rheumatoid arthritis, and chronic kidney disease). Results: A total of 8143 patients were included in the cohort. Male patients and patients aged 40 to 59 years comprised most of the study population. The postoperative complication rate was 5.8%, and the 1-year revision rate was 2.6%. Male sex, age >60 years, ischemic heart disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and chronic kidney disease were statistically significant risk factors for higher 90-day complication rates. Anabolic steroid use significantly increased the risk of surgical revision. Conclusions: Distal triceps repairs in this large cohort study occur most frequently in men aged 40 to 59 years. Complications are generally low, with age >60 years, male sex, ischemic heart disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and chronic kidney disease as risk factors for 90-day complications and prior anabolic steroid use as a risk factor for 1-year revision surgery. This information can help to improve education and expectations of this procedure.

BACKGROUND Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are self-reporting tools that can measure important information about patients, such as health priorities, experience, and perception of outcome. The use of traditional objective measures such as vital signs and lab values can be supplemented with these self-reported patient measures to provide a more complete picture of a patient’s health status. Machine learning, the use of computer algorithms that improve automatically through experience, is a powerful tool in health care that often does not use subjective information shared by patients. However, machine learning has largely been based on objective measures and has been developed without patient or public input. Algorithms often do not have access to critical information from patients and may be missing priorities and measures that matter to patients. Combining objective measures with patient-reported measures can improve the ability of machine learning algorithms to assess patients’ health status and improve the delivery of health care. OBJECTIVE The objective of this scoping review is to identify gaps and benefits in the way machine learning is integrated with patient-reported outcomes for the development of improved public and patient partnerships in research and health care. METHODS We reviewed the following 3 questions to learn from existing literature about the reported gaps and best methods for combining machine learning and patient-reported outcomes: (1) How are the public engaged as involved partners in the development of artificial intelligence in medicine? (2) What examples of good practice can we identify for the integration of PROMs into machine learning algorithms? (3) How has value-based health care influenced the development of artificial intelligence in health care? We searched Ovid MEDLINE(R), Embase, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index, Cochrane Library, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects in addition to PROSPERO and the ClinicalTrials website. The authors will use Covidence to screen titles and abstracts and to conduct the review. We will include systematic reviews and overviews published in any language and may explore additional study types. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies are included in the reviews. RESULTS The search is completed, and Covidence software will be used to work collaboratively. We will report the review using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme for systematic reviews. CONCLUSIONS Findings from our review will help us identify examples of good practice for how to involve the public in the development of machine learning systems as well as interventions and outcomes that have used PROMs and PREMs. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/36395