Fekede Asefa Kumsa

Fekede Asefa Kumsa, Rameshwari Prasad, Arash Shaban-Nejad

Digital health, including telemedicine, has increased access to abortion care. The convenience, flexibility of appointment times, and ensured privacy to abortion users may make abortion services via telemedicine preferable. This scoping review systematically mapped studies conducted on abortion services via telemedicine, including their effectiveness and acceptability for abortion users and providers. All published papers included abortion services via telemedicine in the United States were considered. Articles were searched in PubMed, CINAHL, and Google Scholar databases in September 2022. The findings were synthesized narratively, and the PRISMA-ScR guidelines were used to report this study. Out of 757 retrieved articles, 33 articles were selected based on the inclusion criteria. These studies were published between 2011 and 2022, with 24 published in the last 3 years. The study found that telemedicine increased access to abortion care in the United States, especially for people in remote areas or those worried about stigma from in-person visits. The effectiveness of abortion services via telemedicine was comparable to in-clinic visits, with 6% or fewer abortions requiring surgical intervention. Both care providers and abortion seekers expressed positive perceptions of telemedicine-based abortion services. However, abortion users reported mixed emotions, with some preferring in-person visits. The most common reasons for choosing telemedicine included the distance to the abortion clinic, convenience, privacy, cost, flexibility of appointment times, and state laws imposing waiting periods or restrictive policies. Telemedicine offered a preferable option for abortion seekers and providers. The feasibility of accessing abortion services via telemedicine in low-resource settings needs further investigation.

Soheil Hashtarkhani, Yiwang Zhou, Fekede Asefa Kumsa et al.

Breast cancer screening plays a pivotal role in early detection and subsequent effective management of the disease, impacting patient outcomes and survival rates. This study aims to assess breast cancer screening rates nationwide in the United States and investigate the impact of social determinants of health on these screening rates. Data on mammography screening at the census tract level for 2018 and 2020 were collected from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. We developed a large dataset of social determinants of health, comprising 13 variables for 72337 census tracts. Spatial analysis employing Getis-Ord Gi statistics was used to identify clusters of high and low breast cancer screening rates. To evaluate the influence of these social determinants, we implemented a random forest model, with the aim of comparing its performance to linear regression and support vector machine models. The models were evaluated using R2 and root mean squared error metrics. Shapley Additive Explanations values were subsequently used to assess the significance of variables and direction of their influence. Geospatial analysis revealed elevated screening rates in the eastern and northern United States, while central and midwestern regions exhibited lower rates. The random forest model demonstrated superior performance, with an R2=64.53 and root mean squared error of 2.06 compared to linear regression and support vector machine models. Shapley Additive Explanations values indicated that the percentage of the Black population, the number of mammography facilities within a 10-mile radius, and the percentage of the population with at least a bachelor's degree were the most influential variables, all positively associated with mammography screening rates.

Soheil Hashtarkhani, Rezaur Rashid, Christopher L Brett et al.

Electronic health records contain inconsistently structured or free-text data, requiring efficient preprocessing to enable predictive health care models. Although artificial intelligence-driven natural language processing tools show promise for automating diagnosis classification, their comparative performance and clinical reliability require systematic evaluation. The aim of this study is to evaluate the performance of 4 large language models (GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, Llama 3.2, and Gemini 1.5) and BioBERT in classifying cancer diagnoses from structured and unstructured electronic health records data. We analyzed 762 unique diagnoses (326 International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code descriptions, 436free-text entries) from 3456 records of patients with cancer. Models were tested on their ability to categorize diagnoses into 14predefined categories. Two oncology experts validated classifications. BioBERT achieved the highest weighted macro F1-score for ICD codes (84.2) and matched GPT-4o in ICD code accuracy (90.8). For free-text diagnoses, GPT-4o outperformed BioBERT in weighted macro F1-score (71.8 vs 61.5) and achieved slightly higher accuracy (81.9 vs 81.6). GPT-3.5, Gemini, and Llama showed lower overall performance on both formats. Common misclassification patterns included confusion between metastasis and central nervous system tumors, as well as errors involving ambiguous or overlapping clinical terminology. Although current performance levels appear sufficient for administrative and research use, reliable clinical applications will require standardized documentation practices alongside robust human oversight for high-stakes decision-making.