Substantial advancement in the diagnosis and treatment of psychiatric disorders may come from assembling diverse data streams from clinical notes, neuroimaging, genetics, and real-time digital footprints from smartphones and wearable devices. This is called “deep phenotyping” and often involves machine learning. We argue that incidental findings arising in deep phenotyping research have certain special, morally and legally salient features: They are specific, actionable, numerous, and probabilistic. We consider ethical and legal implications of these features and propose a practical ethics strategy for managing them.

Neuroimaging research regularly yields “incidental findings”: observations of potential clinical significance in healthy volunteers or patients, but which are unrelated to the purpose or variables of the study.

This interview study investigates the short- and long-term implications of incidental findings detected through brain imaging on research participants’ lives and their surroundings. For this study, nine participants of the Rotterdam Scan Study with an incidental finding were approached and interviewed. When examining research participants’ narratives on the impact of the disclosure of incidental findings, the authors identified five sets of tensions with regard to motivations for and expectations of research participation, preferences regarding disclosure, short- and long-term impacts and impacts on self and others. The paper shows: (1) that the impact of incidental findings may be greater than participants at first let on; (2) incidental findings can have significant effects on participants’ social environment; and (3) participants may not feel prepared for disclosure even if incidental findings have been discussed during the informed consent process. The authors call for investigators to be aware of research participants’ experiences and these short- and long-term impacts when designing suitable courses of action for the detection and management of incidental findings in research settings.

Introduction: Whole-body computed tomography scans (WBCT) are a mainstay in the work-up of polytrauma or multiple trauma patients in the emergency department. While incredibly useful for identifying traumatic injuries, WBCTs also reveal incidental findings in patients, some of which require further diagnostic testing and subsequent treatment. Although the presence of incidental findings in WBCTs have been well documented, there has been no systematic review conducted to organize and interpret findings, determine IF prevalence, and document strategies for best management. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, PUBMED, and EMBASE. Specific journals and reference lists were hand-mined, and Google Scholar was used to find any additional papers. Data synthesis was performed to gather information on patient demographics, prevalence and type of incidental findings (IFs), and follow-up management was collected. All documents were independently assessed by the two reviewers for inclusion and any disagreements were resolved by consensus. Results: 1231 study results were identified, 59 abstracts, and 12 included in final review. A mean of 53.9% of patients had at least one IF identified, 31.5% had major findings, and 68.5% had minor findings. A mean of 2.7 IFs per patient was reported for articles that included number of total IFs. The mean age of patients included in the studies were 44 years old with IFs more common in older patients and men with more IFs than women. IFs were most commonly found in the abdominal/pelvic region followed by kidneys. Frequency of follow-up documentation was poor. The most common reported mechanisms of injury for patients included in the study were MVA and road traffic accidents (60.0%) followed by falls from >3m (23.2%). Conclusion: Although there is good documentation on the mechanism of injury, patient demographics, and type of IF, follow-up for IFs following acute trauma admission lacks documentation and follow-up and is an identified issue in patient management. There is great need for systematic protocols to address management of IFs in polytrauma patients.

Introduction: Incidental findings (IFs) are findings discovered in the course of healthcare (e.g., blood tests, genetic tests, imaging) that are unrelated to the primary purpose for which a test was sought. Some IFs constitute new knowledge that have implications for patient autonomy and welfare. IFs found in emergency departments (EDs) are difficult to manage, with one study reporting that of 392 patients with IFs, 122 had no follow-up and 242 had no electronic record of the finding. Methods: A critical interpretive literature review was conducted to explore current practices regarding identification, disclosure, and management of IFs in EDs, and to identify ethical challenges that require research focus and policy reform. The search strategy included ‘incidental findings’ AND ‘emergency’ and derivatives, retrieving 12,021 studies from databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, as well as handsearching and reference list searching. Following screening, 97 studies were included. Data was extracted, analyzed using descriptive statistics, and then critically interpreted to capture key ideas. Results: Of 97 included articles, 75 have relevant empirical data. Of the 75, most literature (89%) presented the frequency of IFs in EDs, with an average frequency of 34%. Most (84%) did not report on patient disclosure rates or follow-up rates. When reported, patient notification rates are as low as 2.6% with an average of 15% over 12 studies. Empirical studies included in the review do not address ethical principles or patient preferences on disclosure. The literature reveals suggestions to manage IFs in EDs, including implementation of automatic feedback or alert mechanisms, clarification of responsibilities within treating teams, protocols in radiology departments, and improvements to patient documentation. Test results by letter are noted as insufficient because patients are unable to ask questions. Authors suggest further research on optimal follow-up recommendations to alleviate patient and physician distress. Further results will be presented, critically interpreted, and discussed, with attention to ethical implications and challenges. Conclusion: The literature on IFs in EDs focuses too narrowly on frequency, with ad hoc suggestions for practice, research, and policy changes to improve the ethical management of IFs. Numerous factors, including crucial knowledge gaps, contribute to inadequate management of IFs arising in EDs. Research and ethics informed policy guidance is needed.

Introduction: Computed tomographic pulmonary angiograms (CTPAs) are often ordered to evaluate pulmonary embolism (PE) in the emergency department (ED). However, these studies often yield alternative diagnoses and report incidental findings that lead to additional unnecessary investigations. Our objective was to assess the prevalence and significance of such findings and their implications in patient management. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of adults presenting to two tertiary care EDs in 2015, being evaluated with CTPA for PE. Data was extracted by two reviewers from electronic CT records with inter-rater reliability reported using kappa statistic. We measured prevalence of PE, incidental findings and alternative diagnoses with data reported as mean and standard deviation (SD). Univariate analyses were performed with t-test for continuous variables and Mantel-Haenszel test for categorical variables. A sample size of 770 was calculated based on an expected difference in prevalence between significant and non-significant incidental findings of 80% (α=5%, Power=90%). Results: A total of 1629 studies were included (mean 62 yrs, SD 16.7, 56.9% female, median CTAS score 2, 45.2% admitted). PE was found in 233 (14.3%) patients. 173 (10.6%) studies had a finding of an alternative diagnosis, the majority being pulmonary infiltrates (n=130, 75.1%). In patients who underwent both CTPA and chest x-ray (CXR), CXRs alone would have led to the same alternative diagnosis in 116 (77.1%) patients. A total of 223 (13.6%) patients had an incidental finding; the majority included pulmonary nodules (n=83, 37.2%) and adenopathy (n=26, 11.6%). Only 26 (17.1%) incidental findings were significant; most common included pulmonary nodules (n=6, 3.9%) and masses (n=7, 4.6%) that lead to newly identified and biopsied lung cancer diagnoses. Incidental findings led to an additional 301 follow-up CTs with a yield of significant result of 9.2% (n=48 CTs). Conclusion: Chest CTs ordered in the ED for clinical suspicion of PE is equally as likely to identify alternative diagnoses or incidental findings as PE. The majority of incidental findings are non-significant and result in an increased use of CT. CXRs should routinely be ordered prior to further investigation for PE with chest CT to reduce unnecessary testing and thus time and cost to the system.