Derivation and Validation of Clinical Prediction Rule for COVID-19 Mortality in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background SARS-CoV-2 is currently causing a high mortality global pandemic. However, the clinical spectrum of disease caused by this virus is broad, ranging from asymptomatic infection to cytokine storm with organ failure and death. Risk stratification of individuals with COVID-19 would be desirable for management, prioritization for trial enrollment, and risk stratification. We sought to develop a prediction rule for mortality due to COVID-19 in individuals with diagnosed infection in Ontario, Canada. Methods Data from Ontario’s provincial iPHIS system were extracted for the period from January 23 to May 15, 2020. Both logistic regression-based prediction rules, and a rule derived using a Cox proportional hazards model, were developed in half the study and validated in remaining patients. Sensitivity analyses were performed with varying approaches to missing data. Results 21,922 COVID-19 cases were reported. Individuals assigned to the derivation and validation sets were broadly similar. Age and comorbidities (notably diabetes, renal disease and immune compromise) were strong predictors of mortality. Four point-based prediction rules were derived (base case, smoking excluded as a predictor, long-term care excluded as a predictor, and Cox model based). All rules displayed excellent discrimination (AUC for all rules > 0.92 ) and calibration (both by graphical inspection and P > 0.50 by Hosmer-Lemeshow test) in the derivation set. All rules performed well in the validation set and were robust to random replacement of missing variables, and to the assumption that missing variables indicated absence of the comorbidity or characteristic in question. Conclusions We were able to use a public health case-management data system to derive and internally validate four accurate, well-calibrated and robust clinical prediction rules for COVID-19 mortality in Ontario, Canada. While these rules need external validation, they may be a useful tool for clinical management, risk stratification, and clinical trials.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".