Internal medicine journal
-
Internal medicine journal · Sep 2023
Flexible bronchoscopy indications and outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous patients in the Northern Territory of Australia.
There is sparse evidence in the literature in relation to indications and outcomes among adult indigenous patients requiring a flexible bronchoscopy (FB). In this study, FB indications and outcomes between indigenous and non-indigenous patients were assessed. ⋯ This study has demonstrated that adult indigenous patients requiring a FB are significantly younger, tend to reside in remote communities and demonstrate differing microbiology with no significant difference in the diagnostic outcomes for lung malignancy. Ethnic status or remoteness should not preclude indigenous patients to undergo a FB if clinically indicated.
-
Internal medicine journal · Sep 2023
Associations between symptoms and functional capacity in patients after COVID-19 infection and community controls.
Post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC or 'long COVID') reflect ongoing symptoms, but these are non-specific and common in the wider community. Few reports of PASC have been compared with a control group. ⋯ Although most participants (69%) had symptoms consistent with long COVID, significant subjective functional impairment was documented in 27% and objective functional impairment in 14%. An exercise training programme might be beneficial for appropriately selected patients.
-
Internal medicine journal · Sep 2023
Artificial intelligence in medicine: has the time come to hang up the stethoscope?
The question of whether the time has come to hang up the stethoscope is bound up in the promises of artificial intelligence (AI), promises that have so far proven difficult to deliver, perhaps because of the mismatch between the technical capability of AI and its use in real-world clinical settings. This perspective argues that it is time to move away from discussing the generalised promise of disembodied AI and focus on specifics. ⋯ Ultimately, ML is just a fancy method of automation. We show that it is useful in automating specific and narrowly defined clinical tasks but likely incapable of automating the full gamut of decisions and tasks performed by clinicians.