When the machine is wrong. Characteristics of true and false predictions of Out-of-Hospital Cardiac arrests in emergency calls using a machine-learning model.

BACKGROUND: A machine-learning model trained to recognize emergency calls regarding Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (OHCA) was tested in clinical practice at Copenhagen Emergency Medical Services (EMS) from September 2018 to December 2019. We aimed to investigate emergency call characteristics where the machine-learning model failed to recognize OHCA or misinterpreted a call as being OHCA. METHODS: All emergency calls were linked to the dispatch database and verified OHCAs were identified by linkage to the Danish Cardiac Arrest Registry. Calls with either false negative or false positive predictions of OHCA were evaluated by trained auditors. Descriptive analyses were performed with absolute numbers and percentages reported. RESULTS: The machine-learning model processed 169,236 calls to Copenhagen EMS and suspected 5,811 (3.4%) of the calls as OHCA, resulting in 84.5% sensitivity and 97.1% specificity. Among OHCAs not recognised by machine-learning model, a condition completely different from OHCA was presented by caller in 31% of the cases. In 28% of unrecognised calls, patient was reported breathing normally, and language barriers were identified in 23% of the cases. Among falsely suspected OHCA, the patient was reported unconscious in 28% of the cases, and in 13% of the false positive cases the machine-learning model interpreted calls regarding dead patients with irreversible signs of death as OHCA. CONCLUSION: Continuous optimization of the language model is needed to improve the prediction of OHCA and thereby improve sensitivity and specificity of the machine-learning model on recognising OHCA in emergency telephone calls.

Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers : A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Observational evidence suggests that mask wearing mitigates transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). It is uncertain if this observed association arises through protection of uninfected wearers (protective effect), via reduced transmission from infected mask wearers (source control), or both. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether recommending surgical mask use outside the home reduces wearers' risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a setting where masks were uncommon and not among recommended public health measures. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial (DANMASK-19 [Danish Study to Assess Face Masks for the Protection Against COVID-19 Infection]). (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04337541). SETTING: Denmark, April and May 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Adults spending more than 3 hours per day outside the home without occupational mask use. INTERVENTION: Encouragement to follow social distancing measures for coronavirus disease 2019, plus either no mask recommendation or a recommendation to wear a mask when outside the home among other persons together with a supply of 50 surgical masks and instructions for proper use. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 infection in the mask wearer at 1 month by antibody testing, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), or hospital diagnosis. The secondary outcome was PCR positivity for other respiratory viruses. RESULTS: A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%). The between-group difference was -0.3 percentage point (95% CI, -1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results. Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection. LIMITATION: Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others. CONCLUSION: The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The Salling Foundations.