COVID-19 Conceptual Modeling: Single-Center Cross-Sectional Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Conceptual models are abstract representations of the real world. They are used to refine medical and nonmedical health care scopes of service. During the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous analytic predictive models were generated aiming to evaluate the impact of implemented policies on mitigating the spread of the virus. The models also aimed to examine the psychosocial factors that might govern the general population's adherence to these policies and to identify factors that could affect COVID-19 vaccine uptake and allocation. The outcomes of these analytic models helped set priorities when vaccines were available and predicted readiness to resume non-COVID-19 health care services. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our research was to implement a descriptive-analytical conceptual model that analyzes the data of all COVID-19-positive cases admitted to our hospital from March 1 to May 31, 2020, the initial wave of the pandemic, the time interval during which local policies and clinical guidelines were constantly updated to mitigate the local effects of COVID-19, minimize mortality, reduce intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and ensure the safety of health care providers. The primary outcome of interest was to identify factors that might affect mortality and ICU admission rates and the impact of the implemented policy on COVID-19 positivity among health care providers. The secondary outcome of interest was to evaluate the sensitivity of the COVID-19 visual score, implemented by the Saudi Arabia Ministry of Health for COVID-19 risk assessment, and CURB-65 (confusion, urea, respiratory rate, blood pressure, and age >65 years) scores in predicting ICU admission or mortality among the study population. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study. The relevant attributes were constructed based on research findings from the first wave of the pandemic and were electronically retrieved from the hospital database. Analysis of the conceptual model was based on the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research guidelines and the Society for Medical Decision-Making. RESULTS: A total of 275 individuals tested positive for COVID-19 within the study design interval. The conceptualization model revealed a low-risk population based on the following attributes: a mean age of 42 (SD 19.2) years; 19% (51/275) of the study population being older adults ≥60 years of age; 80% (220/275) having a CURB-65 score <4; 53% (147/275) having no comorbidities; 5% (13/275) having extreme obesity; and 20% (55/275) having a significant hematological abnormality. The overall rate of ICU admission for the study population was 5% (13/275), and the overall mortality rate was 1.5% (4/275). The multivariate correlation analysis revealed that a high-selectivity approach was adopted, resulting in patients with complex medical problems not being sent to MOH isolation facilities. Furthermore, 5% of health care providers tested positive for COVID-19, none of whom were health care providers allocated to the COVID-19 screening areas, indicating the effectiveness of the policy implemented to ensure the safety of health care providers. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the conceptual model outcome, the selectivity applied in retaining high-risk populations within the hospital might have contributed to the observed low mortality rate, without increasing the risk to attending health care providers.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,018 | 0,024 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».