Development of a risk‐prediction model for Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus infection in dialysis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) infection can cause transmission clusters and high mortality in hemodialysis facilities. We attempted to develop a risk-prediction model to assess the early risk of MERS-CoV infection in dialysis patients. Methods This two-center retrospective cohort study included 104 dialysis patients who were suspected of MERS-CoV infection and diagnosed with rRT-PCR between September 2012 and June 2016 at King Fahd General Hospital in Jeddah and King Abdulaziz Medical City in Riyadh. We retrieved data on demographic, clinical, and radiological findings, and laboratory indices of each patient. Findings A risk-prediction model to assess early risk for MERS-CoV in dialysis patients has been developed. Independent predictors of MERS-CoV infection were identified, including chest pain (OR = 24.194; P = 0.011), leukopenia (OR = 6.080; P = 0.049), and elevated aspartate aminotransferase (AST) (OR = 11.179; P = 0.013). The adequacy of this prediction model was good (P = 0.728), with a high predictive utility (area under curve [AUC] = 76.99%; 95% CI: 67.05% to 86.38%). The prediction of the model had optimism-corrected bootstrap resampling AUC of 71.79%. The Youden index yielded a value of 0.439 or greater as the best cut-off for high risk of MERS infection. Discussion This risk-prediction model in dialysis patients appears to depend markedly on chest pain, leukopenia, and elevated AST. The model accurately predicts the high risk of MERS-CoV infection in dialysis patients. This could be clinically useful in applying timely intervention and control measures to prevent clusters of infections in dialysis facilities or other health care settings. The predictive utility of the model warrants further validation in external samples and prospective studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".