Background: A large number of web-based COVID-19 symptom checkers and chatbots have been developed; however, anecdotal evidence suggests that their conclusions are highly variable. To our knowledge, no study has evaluated the accuracy of COVID-19 symptom checkers in a statistically rigorous manner. Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracies of web-based COVID-19 symptom checkers. Methods: We identified 10 web-based COVID-19 symptom checkers, all of which were included in the study. We evaluated the COVID-19 symptom checkers by assessing 50 COVID-19 case reports alongside 410 non–COVID-19 control cases. A bootstrapping method was used to counter the unbalanced sample sizes and obtain confidence intervals (CIs). Results are reported as sensitivity, specificity, F1 score, and Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC). Results: The classification task between COVID-19–positive and COVID-19–negative for “high risk” cases among the 460 test cases yielded (sorted by F1 score): Symptoma (F1=0.92, MCC=0.85), Infermedica (F1=0.80, MCC=0.61), US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (F1=0.71, MCC=0.30), Babylon (F1=0.70, MCC=0.29), Cleveland Clinic (F1=0.40, MCC=0.07), Providence (F1=0.40, MCC=0.05), Apple (F1=0.29, MCC=-0.10), Docyet (F1=0.27, MCC=0.29), Ada (F1=0.24, MCC=0.27) and Your.MD (F1=0.24, MCC=0.27). For “high risk” and “medium risk” combined the performance was: Symptoma (F1=0.91, MCC=0.83) Infermedica (F1=0.80, MCC=0.61), Cleveland Clinic (F1=0.76, MCC=0.47), Providence (F1=0.75, MCC=0.45), Your.MD (F1=0.72, MCC=0.33), CDC (F1=0.71, MCC=0.30), Babylon (F1=0.70, MCC=0.29), Apple (F1=0.70, MCC=0.25), Ada (F1=0.42, MCC=0.03), and Docyet (F1=0.27, MCC=0.29). Conclusions: We found that the number of correctly assessed COVID-19 and control cases varies considerably between symptom checkers, with different symptom checkers showing different strengths with respect to sensitivity and specificity. A good balance between sensitivity and specificity was only achieved by two symptom checkers.

Recurrence is a critical aspect of breast cancer (BC) that is inexorably tied to mortality. Reuse of healthcare data through Machine Learning (ML) algorithms offers great opportunities to improve the stratification of patients at risk of cancer recurrence. We hypothesized that combining features from structured and unstructured sources would provide better prediction results for 5-year cancer recurrence than either source alone. We collected and preprocessed clinical data from a cohort of BC patients, resulting in 823 valid subjects for analysis. We derived three sets of features: structured information, features from free text, and a combination of both. We evaluated the performance of five ML algorithms to predict 5-year cancer recurrence and selected the best-performing to test our hypothesis. The XGB (eXtreme Gradient Boosting) model yielded the best performance among the five evaluated algorithms, with precision = 0.900, recall = 0.907, F1-score = 0.897, and area under the receiver operating characteristic AUROC = 0.807. The best prediction results were achieved with the structured dataset, followed by the unstructured dataset, while the combined dataset achieved the poorest performance. ML algorithms for BC recurrence prediction are valuable tools to improve patient risk stratification, help with post-cancer monitoring, and plan more effective follow-up. Structured data provides the best results when fed to ML algorithms. However, an approach based on natural language processing offers comparable results while potentially requiring less mapping effort.

The importance and value of real-world data in healthcare cannot be overstated because it offers a valuable source of insights into patient experiences. Traditional patient-reported experience and outcomes measures (PREMs/PROMs) often fall short in addressing the complexities of these experiences due to subjectivity and their inability to precisely target the questions asked. In contrast, diary recordings offer a promising solution. They can provide a comprehensive picture of psychological well-being, encompassing both psychological and physiological symptoms. This study explores how using advanced digital technologies, i.e., automatic speech recognition and natural language processing, can efficiently capture patient insights in oncology settings. We introduce the MRAST framework, a simplified way to collect, structure, and understand patient data using questionnaires and diary recordings. The framework was validated in a prospective study with 81 colorectal and 85 breast cancer survivors, of whom 37 were male and 129 were female. Overall, the patients evaluated the solution as well made; they found it easy to use and integrate into their daily routine. The majority (75.3%) of the cancer survivors participating in the study were willing to engage in health monitoring activities using digital wearable devices daily for an extended period. Throughout the study, there was a noticeable increase in the number of participants who perceived the system as having excellent usability. Despite some negative feedback, 44.44% of patients still rated the app’s usability as above satisfactory (i.e., 7.9 on 1–10 scale) and the experience with diary recording as above satisfactory (i.e., 7.0 on 1–10 scale). Overall, these findings also underscore the significance of user testing and continuous improvement in enhancing the usability and user acceptance of solutions like the MRAST framework. Overall, the automated extraction of information from diaries represents a pivotal step toward a more patient-centered approach, where healthcare decisions are based on real-world experiences and tailored to individual needs. The potential usefulness of such data is enormous, as it enables better measurement of everyday experiences and opens new avenues for patient-centered care.

Cancer survivors face numerous challenges, and digital health interventions can empower them by enhancing self-efficacy and patient activation. This prospective study aimed to assess the impact of a mHealth app on self-efficacy and patient activation in 166 breast and colorectal cancer survivors. Participants received a smart bracelet and used the app to access personalized care plans. Data were collected at baseline and follow-ups, including patient-reported outcomes and clinician feedback. The study demonstrated positive impacts on self-efficacy and patient activation. The overall trial retention rate was 75.3%. Participants reported high levels of activation (PAM levels 1–3: P = 1.0; level 4: P = 0.65) and expressed a willingness to stay informed about their disease (CASE-Cancer factor 1: P = 0.98; factor 2: P = 0.66; factor 3: P = 0.25). Usability of the app improved, with an increase in participants rating the system as having excellent usability (from 14.82% to 22.22%). Additional qualitative analysis revealed positive experiences from both patients and clinicians. This paper contributes significantly to cancer survivorship care by providing personalized care plans tailored to individual needs. The PERSIST platform shows promise in improving patient outcomes and enhancing self-management abilities in cancer survivors. Further research with larger and more diverse populations is needed to establish its effectiveness.

(1) Background: The needs of cancer survivors are often not reflected in practice. One of the main barriers of the use of patient-reported outcomes is associated with data collection and the interpretation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) due to a multitude of instruments and measuring approaches. The aim of the study was to establish an expert consensus on the relevance and key indicators of quality of life in the clinical practice of breast cancer survivors. (2) Methods: Potential indicators of the quality of life of breast cancer survivors were extracted from the established quality of life models, depicting survivors’ perspectives. The specific domains and subdomains of quality of life were evaluated in a two-stage online Delphi process, including an international and multidisciplinary panel of experts. (3) Results: The first round of the Delphi process was completed by 57 and the second by 37 participants. A consensus was reached for the Physical and Psychological domains, and on eleven subdomains of quality of life. The results were further supported by the additional ranking of importance of the subdomains in the second round. (4) Conclusions: The current findings can serve to optimize the use of instruments and address the challenges related to data collection and interpretation as the facilitators of the adaption in routine practice.

Background: A large number of online COVID-19 symptom checkers and chatbots have been developed but anecdotal evidence suggests that their conclusions are highly variable. To our knowledge, no study has evaluated the accuracy of COVID-19 symptom checkers in a statistically rigorous manner. Methods: In this paper, we evaluate 10 different COVID-19 symptom checkers screening 50 COVID-19 case reports alongside 410 non-COVID-19 control cases. Results: We find that the number of correctly assessed cases varies considerably between different symptom checkers, with Symptoma (F ₁ =0.92, MCC=0.85) showing the overall best performance followed by Infermedica (F ₁ =0.80, MCC=0.61).