MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3204287795 · doi:10.2196/29544

Uncovering Clinical Risk Factors and Predicting Severe COVID-19 Cases Using UK Biobank Data: Machine Learning Approach

2021· article· en· W3204287795 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kenneth Chi-Yin Wong, Yong Xiang, Liangying Yin, Hon‐Cheong So

Notice bibliographique

RevueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesKunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of SciencesMedical Research CouncilChinese University of Hong Kong
Mots-clésBiobankComorbidityMedicinePopulationCovariatePredictive modellingRisk assessmentFramingham Risk ScoreProxy (statistics)DemographyDiseaseInternal medicineEnvironmental healthMachine learningComputer scienceBioinformatics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a major public health concern. Given the extent of the pandemic, it is urgent to identify risk factors associated with disease severity. More accurate prediction of those at risk of developing severe infections is of high clinical importance. OBJECTIVE: Based on the UK Biobank (UKBB), we aimed to build machine learning models to predict the risk of developing severe or fatal infections, and uncover major risk factors involved. METHODS: We first restricted the analysis to infected individuals (n=7846), then performed analysis at a population level, considering those with no known infection as controls (ncontrols=465,728). Hospitalization was used as a proxy for severity. A total of 97 clinical variables (collected prior to the COVID-19 outbreak) covering demographic variables, comorbidities, blood measurements (eg, hematological/liver/renal function/metabolic parameters), anthropometric measures, and other risk factors (eg, smoking/drinking) were included as predictors. We also constructed a simplified (lite) prediction model using 27 covariates that can be more easily obtained (demographic and comorbidity data). XGboost (gradient-boosted trees) was used for prediction and predictive performance was assessed by cross-validation. Variable importance was quantified by Shapley values (ShapVal), permutation importance (PermImp), and accuracy gain. Shapley dependency and interaction plots were used to evaluate the pattern of relationships between risk factors and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 2386 severe and 477 fatal cases were identified. For analyses within infected individuals (n=7846), our prediction model achieved area under the receiving-operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) of 0.723 (95% CI 0.711-0.736) and 0.814 (95% CI 0.791-0.838) for severe and fatal infections, respectively. The top 5 contributing factors (sorted by ShapVal) for severity were age, number of drugs taken (cnt_tx), cystatin C (reflecting renal function), waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), and Townsend deprivation index (TDI). For mortality, the top features were age, testosterone, cnt_tx, waist circumference (WC), and red cell distribution width. For analyses involving the whole UKBB population, AUCs for severity and fatality were 0.696 (95% CI 0.684-0.708) and 0.825 (95% CI 0.802-0.848), respectively. The same top 5 risk factors were identified for both outcomes, namely, age, cnt_tx, WC, WHR, and TDI. Apart from the above, age, cystatin C, TDI, and cnt_tx were among the top 10 across all 4 analyses. Other diseases top ranked by ShapVal or PermImp were type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, and dementia, among others. For the "lite" models, predictive performances were broadly similar, with estimated AUCs of 0.716, 0.818, 0.696, and 0.830, respectively. The top ranked variables were similar to above, including age, cnt_tx, WC, sex (male), and T2DM. CONCLUSIONS: We identified numerous baseline clinical risk factors for severe/fatal infection by XGboost. For example, age, central obesity, impaired renal function, multiple comorbidities, and cardiometabolic abnormalities may predispose to poorer outcomes. The prediction models may be useful at a population level to identify those susceptible to developing severe/fatal infections, facilitating targeted prevention strategies. A risk-prediction tool is also available online. Further replications in independent cohorts are required to verify our findings.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,225
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,265
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,943

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,225
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,241
Tête enseignante GPT0,487
Écart entre enseignants0,246 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations36
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJMIR Public Health and SurveillanceMême sujetCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesTravaux en français237 207