ArticleJournal of medical case reports2024
Connected to the cloud at time of death: a case report.
Article in Journal of medical case reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOur case report provides the first clinical evaluation of autopsy practices for a patient death that occurs on the cloud. We question how autopsy practices may require adaptation for a death that presents via the 'Internet of Things', examining how existing guidelines capture data related to death which is no longer confined to the patient's body. CASE PRESENTATION: The patient was a British man in his 50s, who came to the attention of the medical team via an alert on the cloud-based platform that monitored his implanted cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). The patient had a background of congenital heart disease, with previous ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest, for which the ICD had been implanted two years earlier. Retrospective analysis of the cloud data demonstrated a gradually decreasing nocturnal heart rate over the previous three months, falling to a final transmission of 24 beats per minute (bpm). In the patient post-mortem the ICD was treated as medical waste, structural tissue changes precluded the effective evaluation of device hardware, potential issues related to device software were not investigated and the cause of death was assigned to underlying heart failure. The documentation from the attending law enforcement officials did not consider possible digital causes of harm and relevant technology was not collected from the scene of death.
conclusionThrough this patient case we explore novel challenges associated with digital deaths including; (1) device hardware issues (difficult extraction processes, impact of pathological tissue changes), (2) software and data limitations (impact of negative body temperatures and mortuary radio-imaging on devices, lack of retrospective cloud data analysis), (3) guideline limitations (missing digital components in autopsy instruction and death certification), and (4) changes to clinical management (emotional impact of communicating deaths occurring over the internet to members of family). We consider the implications of our findings for public health services, the security and intelligence community, and patients and their families. In sharing this report we seek to raise awareness of digital medical cases, to draw attention to how the nature of dying is changing through technology, and to motivate the development of digitally appropriate clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.