MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4205444826 · doi:10.1101/2021.01.25.21249942

Development and external validation of prognostic models for COVID-19 to support risk stratification in secondary care

2021· preprint· en· W4205444826 sur OpenAlexfundno aff
Nicola J. Adderley, Thomas Taverner, Malcolm J Price, Christopher Sainsbury, David Greenwood, Joht Singh Chandan, Yemisi Takwoingi, Rashan Haniffa, Isaac Hosier, Carly Welch, Dhruv Parekh, Suzy Gallier, Krishna Gokhale, Alastair K. Denniston, Elizabeth Sapey, Krishnarajah Nirantharakumar

Notice bibliographique

RevuemedRxiv · 2021
Typepreprint
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesMedical Research CouncilBirmingham Biomedical Research CentreQueen's UniversityQueen's University BelfastNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchQueen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham CharityRoyal Free London NHS Foundation TrustKing's College LondonUK Research and Innovation
Mots-clésMedicineReceiver operating characteristicLogistic regressionCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Emergency medicineStepwise regressionRisk stratificationIntensive care unitInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Objectives Existing UK prognostic models for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are limited by reliance on comorbidities, which are under-recorded in secondary care, and lack of imaging data among the candidate predictors. Our aims were to develop and externally validate novel prognostic models for adverse outcomes (death, intensive therapy unit (ITU) admission) in UK secondary care; and externally validate the existing 4C score. Design Candidate predictors included demographic variables, symptoms, physiological measures, imaging, laboratory tests. Final models used logistic regression with stepwise selection. Setting Model development was performed in data from University Hospitals Birmingham (UHB). External validation was performed in the CovidCollab dataset. Participants Patients with COVID-19 admitted to UHB January-August 2020 were included. Main outcome measures Death and ITU admission within 28 days of admission. Results 1040 patients with COVID-19 were included in the derivation cohort; 288 (28%) died and 183 (18%) were admitted to ITU within 28 days of admission. Area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) for mortality was 0.791 (95%CI 0.761-0.822) in UHB and 0.767 (95%CI 0.754-0.780) in CovidCollab; AUROC for ITU admission was 0.906 (95%CI 0.883-0.929) in UHB and 0.811 (95%CI 0.795-0.828) in CovidCollab. Models showed good calibration. Addition of comorbidities to candidate predictors did not improve model performance. AUROC for the 4C score in the UHB dataset was 0.754 (95%CI 0.721-0.786). Conclusions The novel prognostic models showed good discrimination and calibration in derivation and external validation datasets, and outperformed the existing 4C score. The models can be integrated into electronic medical records systems to calculate each individual patient’s probability of death or ITU admission at the time of hospital admission. Implementation of the models and clinical utility should be evaluated. Article Summary Strengths and limitations of this study We developed novel prognostic models predicting mortality and ITU admission within 28 days of admission for patients hospitalised with COVID-19, using a large routinely collected dataset gathered at admission with a wide range of possible predictors (demographic variables, symptoms, physiological measures, imaging, laboratory test results). These novel models showed good discrimination and calibration in both derivation and external validation cohorts, and outperformed the existing ISARIC model and 4C score in the derivation dataset. We found that addition of comorbidities to the set of candidate predictors included in model derivation did not improve model performance. If integrated into hospital electronic medical records systems, the model algorithms will provide a predicted probability of mortality or ITU admission for each patient based on their individual data at, or close to, the time of admission, which will support clinicians’ decision making with regard to appropriate patient care pathways and triage. This information might also assist clinicians in explaining complex prognostic assessments and decisions to patients and their relatives. A limitation of the study was that in the external validation cohort we were unable to examine all of the predictors included in the original full UHB model due to only a reduced set of candidate predictors being available in CovidCollab. Nevertheless, the reduced model performed well and the results suggest it may be applicable in a wide range of datasets where only a reduced set of predictor variables is available. Furthermore, it was not possible to carry out stratified analysis by ethnicity as the UHB dataset contained too few patients in most of the strata, and no ethnicity data was available in the CovidCollab dataset.

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,037
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,085
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
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 enseignants0,037
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,197

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0370,085
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,003
Bibliométrie0,0030,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,001
Science ouverte0,0020,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,002

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 Opus0,123
Tête enseignante GPT0,404
Écart entre enseignants0,282 · 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
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

Citations1
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuemedRxiv→Même sujetCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts→Travaux en français237 207→