Machine learning for prediction of in-hospital mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 patients: results from an Italian multicenter study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several risk factors have been identified to predict worse outcomes in patients affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Machine learning algorithms represent a novel approach to identifying a prediction model with a good discriminatory capacity to be easily used in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to obtain a risk score for in-hospital mortality in patients with coronavirus disease infection (COVID-19) based on a limited number of features collected at hospital admission. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied an Italian cohort of consecutive adult Caucasian patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 who were hospitalized in 13 cardiology units during Spring 2020. The Lasso procedure was used to select the most relevant covariates. The dataset was randomly divided into a training set containing 80% of the data, used for estimating the model, and a test set with the remaining 20%. A Random Forest modeled in-hospital mortality with the selected set of covariates: its accuracy was measured by means of the ROC curve, obtaining AUC, sensitivity, specificity and related 95% confidence interval (CI). This model was then compared with the one obtained by the Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM) and with logistic regression. Finally, to understand if each model has the same performance in the training and test set, the two AUCs were compared using the DeLong's test. Among 701 patients enrolled (mean age 67.2 ± 13.2 years, 69.5% male individuals), 165 (23.5%) died during a median hospitalization of 15 (IQR, 9-24) days. Variables selected by the Lasso procedure were: age, oxygen saturation, PaO2/FiO2, creatinine clearance and elevated troponin. Compared with those who survived, deceased patients were older, had a lower blood oxygenation, lower creatinine clearance levels and higher prevalence of elevated troponin (all P < 0.001). The best performance out of the samples was provided by Random Forest with an AUC of 0.78 (95% CI: 0.68-0.88) and a sensitivity of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.58-1.00). Moreover, Random Forest was the unique model that provided similar performance in sample and out of sample (DeLong test P = 0.78). CONCLUSION: In a large COVID-19 population, we showed that a customizable machine learning-based score derived from clinical variables is feasible and effective for the prediction of in-hospital mortality.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".