Predictive scores for the diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism in COVID-19: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: During the COVID-19 pandemic, several studies described an increased chance of developing pulmonary embolism (PE). Several scores have been used to predict the occurrence of PE. This systematic review summarizes the literature on predicting rules for PE in hospitalized COVID-19 patients (HCPs). METHODS: PUBMED and EMBASE databases were searched to identify articles (1 January 2020-28 April 2021) presenting data pertaining to the use of a prediction rule to assess the risk for PE in adult HCPs. The investigated outcome was the diagnosis of PE. Studies presenting data using a single laboratory assay for PE prediction were excluded. Included studies were appraised for methodological quality using the Newcastle - Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for Cohort Studies (NOS). RESULTS: We obtained a refined pool of twelve studies for five scoring systems (Wells score, Geneva score, CHADS2/CHA2DS2VASc/M-CHA2DS2VASc, CHOD score, Padua Prediction Score), and 4,526 patients. Only one score was designed explicitly for HCPs. Three and nine included studies were prospective and retrospective cohort studies, respectively. Among the examined scores, the CHOD score seems promising for predictive ability. CONCLUSION: New prediction rules, specifically developed and validated for estimating the risk of PE in HCP, differentiating ICU from non-ICU patients, and taking into account anticoagulation prophylaxis, comorbidities, and the time from COVID-19 diagnosis are needed.
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 | 0.009 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".