Predefined and data driven CT densitometric features predict critical illness and hospital length of stay in COVID-19 patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare whole lung CT density histograms to predict critical illness outcome and hospital length of stay in a cohort of 80 COVID-19 patients. CT chest images on segmented lungs were retrospectively analyzed. Functional Principal Component Analysis (FPCA) was used to find the main modes of variations on CT density histograms. CT density features, the CT severity score, the COVID-GRAM score and the patient clinical data were assessed for predicting the patient outcome using logistic regression models and survival analysis. ROC analysis predictors of critically ill status: 87.5th percentile CT density (Q875)-AUC 0.88 95% CI (0.79 0.94), F1-CT-AUC 0.87 (0.77 0.93) Standard Deviation (SD-CT)-AUC 0.86 (0.73, 0.93). Multivariate models combining CT-density predictors and Neutrophil-Lymphocyte Ratio showed the highest accuracy. SD-CT, Q875 and F1 score were significant predictors of hospital length of stay (LOS) while controlling for hospital death using competing risks models. Moreover, two multivariate Fine-Gray regression models combining the clinical variables: age, NLR, Contrast CT factor with either Q875 or F1 CT-density predictors revealed significant effects for the prediction of LOS incidence in presence of a competing risk (death) and acceptable predictive performances (Bootstrapped C-index 0.74 [0.70 0.78]).
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".