A Novel Mobile App to Identify Patients With Multimorbidity in the Emergency Setting: Development of an App and Feasibility Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity is associated with an increased risk of poor surgical outcomes among older adults; however, identifying multimorbidity in the clinical setting can be a challenge. OBJECTIVE: We created the Multimorbid Patient Identifier App (MMApp) to easily identify patients with multimorbidity identified by the presence of a Qualifying Comorbidity Set and tested its feasibility for use in future clinical research, validation, and eventually to guide clinical decision-making. METHODS: We adapted the Qualifying Comorbidity Sets' claims-based definition of multimorbidity for clinical use through a modified Delphi approach and developed MMApp. A total of 10 residents input 5 hypothetical emergency general surgery patient scenarios, common among older adults, into the MMApp and examined MMApp test characteristics for a total of 50 trials. For MMApp, comorbidities selected for each scenario were recorded, along with the number of comorbidities correctly chosen, incorrectly chosen, and missed for each scenario. The sensitivity and specificity of identifying a patient as multimorbid using MMApp were calculated using composite data from all scenarios. To assess model feasibility, we compared the mean task completion by scenario to that of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk Calculator (ACS-NSQIP-SRC) using paired t tests. Usability and satisfaction with MMApp were assessed using an 18-item questionnaire administered immediately after completing all 5 scenarios. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the task completion time between the MMApp and the ACS-NSQIP-SRC for scenarios A (86.3 seconds vs 74.3 seconds, P=.85) or C (58.4 seconds vs 68.9 seconds,P=.064), MMapp took less time for scenarios B (76.1 seconds vs 87.4 seconds, P=.03) and E (20.7 seconds vs 73 seconds, P<.001), and more time for scenario D (78.8 seconds vs 58.5 seconds, P=.02). The MMApp identified multimorbidity with 96.7% (29/30) sensitivity and 95% (19/20) specificity. User feedback was positive regarding MMApp's usability, efficiency, and usefulness. CONCLUSIONS: The MMApp identified multimorbidity with high sensitivity and specificity and did not require significantly more time to complete than a commonly used web-based risk-stratification tool for most scenarios. Mean user times were well under 2 minutes. Feedback was overall positive from residents regarding the usability and usefulness of this app, even in the emergency general surgery setting. It would be feasible to use MMApp to identify patients with multimorbidity in the emergency general surgery setting for validation, research, and eventual clinical use. This type of mobile app could serve as a template for other research teams to create a tool to easily screen participants for potential enrollment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".