Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Triage”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2026

The potential of clustering methods for pre-test triage in sleep medicine: A systematic review.

Sleep disorders exhibit substantial heterogeneity, and traditional classifications may not fully capture clinically relevant subtypes. Clustering techniques can identify patient subgroups that improve phenotypic characterization and may support personalized management. This systematic review evaluated the application of clustering in sleep medicine, with particular focus on its potential use as a pre-test triage tool prior to formal sleep testing. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched to February 2025. Eligible studies applied clustering to classify sleep disorders in adults. Two reviewers independently conducted screening, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment using QUADAS-2. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO. Fifty-one studies (1983-2025) were included, predominantly focused on obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) (n = 38, 74%). Hierarchical clustering (n = 20) and K-means clustering (n = 14) were the most frequently used techniques. Internal validation was reported in only 18% of studies, and external validation was reported in only 1 study. Seven studies relied exclusively on baseline clinical, demographic, or questionnaire data, representing pre-test scenarios, whereas most incorporated polysomnography-derived variables, limiting their applicability to early clinical stratification. Hierarchical clustering was the most commonly applied method; however, the overall lack of validation limits confidence in the robustness and clinical applicability of identified phenotypes. The potential role of clustering as a pre-test triage strategy remains largely unexplored, as most studies focused on post-diagnostic phenotyping and were affected by incorporation bias. Future research should prioritize pre-test clinical variables, rigorously validate internally and externally, and adopt standardized methodological and reporting practices to facilitate clinical translation.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Ancient DNA and Human Physiology.

Ancient DNA (aDNA) enables the reconstruction of chronologically sampled genomes from ancient humans, animals, plants, pathogens, and microorganisms, as well as environmental DNA, providing a record of biological changes through time. Improvements in short and degraded DNA extraction methods and low-cost sequencing now enable the generation of broad, cross-regional datasets that expand evolutionary analyses from past population demography to biological mechanisms. By tracking temporal shifts of allele frequencies, integrating functional genomics resources (e.g., gene expression, chromatin structure variation), modeling population demography to separate selection from genetic drift, and aligning genetic changes with archaeological, cultural, and climatic data, aDNA has the potential to link sequence variation to physiological function within their temporal and environmental contexts. In this review, we summarize illustrative case studies from aDNA research spanning complex traits, dietary adaptations, and responses to pathogens and other environmental changes, showing how human biology has evolved under multiple selective pressures through time. These dated signals help triage experimental work and expose mechanisms that are rare or absent in living cohorts. Although some challenges remain, such as geographic and temporal sampling disparities, limitations in data resolution and variant detection, and genotype-phenotype uncertainties, rapid methodological progress and stronger ethical frameworks are expanding what can be inferred, making aDNA a promising tool for refining physiological pathways, their timing, and their drivers.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Mendelian randomisation for rheumatology: beyond hype-what it's good for, what it can't do, and how to read it critically.

Mendelian randomisation (MR) has become abundant in the literature, with variation in quality and frequent overinterpretation of causality. This creates a problem for clinical readers, reviewers, and editors: some MR studies can sharpen causal thinking, prioritise drug targets, and challenge misleading observational claims, whereas others are little more than automated exposure-outcome scans with causal claims disproportionate to the evidence. MR can strengthen causal inference when randomised trials are impractical and conventional observational studies are vulnerable to confounding, reverse causation, or selection bias. In rheumatology, credible MR can contribute to questions about disease aetiology, modifiable risk factors, therapeutic target validation, adverse-effect anticipation, and phenotype validation. However, its interpretation depends on whether the exposure is plausibly instrumentable, whether the genetic instruments are biologically defensible, whether assumptions are interrogated in ways appropriate to the design, and whether findings are triangulated with clinical, observational, experimental, and mechanistic evidence. Instead of recapitulating all methodological issues of MR, this review aims to help rheumatologists distinguish robust MR from weak or overinterpreted analyses quickly. We provide an accessible framework for reading and triaging MR studies in rheumatology. Papers that use poorly justified instruments, treat medication use as drug-target evidence, interpret genetic liability as diagnosis, rely on mechanical sensitivity analyses, ignore prior evidence or ask no clinically meaningful question can often be passed over by readers. The goal is not to discourage MR in rheumatology, but to raise the standard; useful MR should clarify causal reasoning rather than simply generate another statistically significant association.

Journal Article↗
PubMed2026

Automated CEAP Classification of Venous Duplex Reports Using Multimodal Artificial Intelligence.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and internally validate a prototype multimodal artificial intelligence system for automated CEAP (Clinical, Etiological, Anatomical and Pathophysiological) classification of venous duplex ultrasound (VDUS) reports, integrating natural language processing of free-text components with computer vision analysis of hand-drawn anatomical diagrams. METHODS: Single centre retrospective observational study using routinely collected clinical data. One thousand consecutive venous duplex ultrasound reports from Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, UK (July 2024 - May 2025) were labelled according to the CEAP classification, excluding the Etiological component, which could not be reliably determined from duplex reports alone. Transfer learning was applied using ClinicalBERT for text and MobileNetV3 for diagrammatic data. Clinical classes were predicted from request line text. Text- and image-based pathophysiological models were developed for four anatomical territories (Great Saphenous Vein, Small Saphenous Vein, Deep system, Perforators), combined using late fusion with probability averaging. RESULTS: The clinical CEAP model achieved accuracy of 0.91, macro-F1 of 0.82, and macro-AUC of 0.98. Pathophysiological prediction varied, with text models broadly outperforming image models. Fusion yielded heterogeneous benefits, improving SSV performance but reducing Deep system accuracy. The performance of the final pathophysiological CEAP fusion models varied across anatomical territories: accuracy ranged from 0.70-0.92 and macro-AUC from 0.80-0.92. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the feasibility of automated CEAP classification from VDUS reports. Despite class imbalance affecting minority class predictions, the strong discriminatory performance validates this multimodal ML model for extracting clinically meaningful information from real-world data. This approach offers potential, pending external validation, to streamline vascular services through automated triage and guideline-compliant decision making.

Artificial intelligence↗
PubMed2026

Artificial intelligence-supported double reading in European population breast cancer screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective programs.

BACKGROUND: Most European population mammography screening programs rely on double reading with arbitration, a model that delivers mortality benefit but is increasingly challenged by radiologist workload, variable specificity, and interval cancers. Artificial intelligence (AI) is being evaluated to support or optimize these established European screening pathways. PURPOSE: To synthesize prospective or program-embedded evaluations of AI conducted within European-style population screening programs and to estimate exploratory program-level absolute risk differences (RDs) per 1000 examinations for cancer detection rate (CDR) and recall. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a prespecified, focused evidence synthesis of three large studies embedded within routine population screening programs operating under European-relevant workflows: MASAI (randomized AI-supported risk triage within a national program), ScreenTrustCAD (prospective paired-reader evaluation with AI as an independent reader in a double-reading framework), and PRAIM (nationwide decision-referral implementation). Outcomes were harmonized as AI-control RDs per 1000 examinations. Random-effects pooling used Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman models. For the paired-reader design, sensitivity analyses applied a Kish effective sample-size approach across plausible within-examination correlations (ρ = 0.3-0.8). Positive predictive value (PPV) and workflow/time outcomes were summarized descriptively. RESULTS: Across 597,419 examinations, the pooled CDR RD was +0.9 per 1000 (95% CI -0.0 to +1.8; I2 ≈ 12%), consistent with a modest directional increase with borderline statistical uncertainty. The pooled recall RD was -0.6 per 1000 (95% CI -3.1 to +2.1; I2 ≈ 41-43%), indicating no consistent recall increase across screening programs. Where reported, PPV was higher with AI-supported screening. Efficiency signals included 44.3% fewer total readings in MASAI and shorter reading times for AI-normal examinations in PRAIM; in PRAIM, a program-level safety-net mechanism recovered 204 cancers that would otherwise have been missed. CONCLUSION: In European population screening programs characterized by double reading and arbitration, prospective program-embedded evidence suggests that AI integration may yield a small absolute increase in cancer detection (≈1/1000) without a consistent increase in recall, alongside improved PPV and efficiency signals. These findings suggestAI primarily as a complementary reader within European screening workflows, with implementation requiring explicit quality assurance and monitoring of interval cancers and stage distribution.

Humans↗