Interpretable clinical phenotypes among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 using cluster analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Multiple clinical phenotypes have been proposed for coronavirus disease (COVID-19), but few have used multimodal data. Using clinical and imaging data, we aimed to identify distinct clinical phenotypes in patients admitted with COVID-19 and to assess their clinical outcomes. Our secondary objective was to demonstrate the clinical applicability of this method by developing an interpretable model for phenotype assignment. Methods: We analyzed data from 547 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at a Canadian academic hospital. We processed the data by applying a factor analysis of mixed data (FAMD) and compared four clustering algorithms: k-means, partitioning around medoids (PAM), and divisive and agglomerative hierarchical clustering. We used imaging data and 34 clinical variables collected within the first 24 h of admission to train our algorithm. We conducted a survival analysis to compare the clinical outcomes across phenotypes. With the data split into training and validation sets (75/25 ratio), we developed a decision-tree-based model to facilitate the interpretation and assignment of the observed phenotypes. Results: Agglomerative hierarchical clustering was the most robust algorithm. We identified three clinical phenotypes: 79 patients (14%) in Cluster 1, 275 patients (50%) in Cluster 2, and 203 (37%) in Cluster 3. Cluster 2 and Cluster 3 were both characterized by a low-risk respiratory and inflammatory profile but differed in terms of demographics. Compared with Cluster 3, Cluster 2 comprised older patients with more comorbidities. Cluster 1 represented the group with the most severe clinical presentation, as inferred by the highest rate of hypoxemia and the highest radiological burden. Intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mechanical ventilation risks were the highest in Cluster 1. Using only two to four decision rules, the classification and regression tree (CART) phenotype assignment model achieved an AUC of 84% (81.5-86.5%, 95 CI) on the validation set. Conclusions: We conducted a multidimensional phenotypic analysis of adult inpatients with COVID-19 and identified three distinct phenotypes associated with different clinical outcomes. We also demonstrated the clinical usability of this approach, as phenotypes can be accurately assigned using a simple decision tree. Further research is still needed to properly incorporate these phenotypes in the management of patients with COVID-19.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".