MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386529553 · doi:10.1128/mbio.01508-23

Predicting COVID-19 prognosis in hospitalized patients based on early status

2023· article· en· W4386529553 on OpenAlexfundno aff
David Natanov, Byron Avihai, Erin McDonnell, Eileen Lee, Brennan Cook, Nicole Altomare, Tomohiro M. Ko, Angelo Chaia, Carolayn Munoz, Samantha Ouellette, Suraj Nyalakonda, Vanessa Cederbaum, Payal Parikh, Martin J. Blaser

Bibliographic record

VenuemBio · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 diagnosis using AI
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesSchool of Medicine, Stanford UniversityNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of HealthSchool of Medicine, New York UniversityYork University
KeywordsMedicineReceiver operating characteristicRetrospective cohort studyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Internal medicineBlood urea nitrogenArea under the curvePneumoniaRed blood cell distribution widthDiseaseCreatinine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Predicting which patients are at greatest risk of severe disease from COVID-19 has the potential to improve patient outcomes and improve resource allocation. We developed machine learning models for predicting COVID-19 prognosis from a retrospective chart review of 969 hospitalized COVID-19 patients at Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital during the first pandemic wave in the United States, focusing on 77 variables from patients’ first day of hospital admission. Our best 77-variable model was better able to predict mortality (receiver operating characteristic area under the curve [ROC AUC] = 0.808) than CURB-65, a commonly used clinical prediction rule for pneumonia severity (ROC AUC = 0.722). After identifying highly predictive variables in our full models using Sh apley a dditive ex p lanations values, we generated two models, platelet count, lactate, age, blood urea nitrogen, aspartate aminotransferase, and C-reactive protein (PLABAC) and platelet count, red blood cell distribution width, age, blood urea nitrogen, lactate, and eosinophil count (PRABLE), that use age and five common laboratory tests to predict mortality (PLABAC: ROC AUC = 0.796, PRABLE: ROC AUC = 0.793), which also outperformed CURB-65. We externally validated PLABAC using data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative Data Enclave from 7901 hospitalized COVID-19 patients from the pre-vaccination period and 1547 from the vaccination period, yielding ROC AUCs of 0.755 and 0.766, respectively. This study demonstrates that our models can accurately predict COVID-19 outcomes from a small number of variables obtained early in a patient’s hospital stay in patients from institutions around the United States after the initial pandemic wave. These models can serve as a clinical prediction aid and accurately capture a patient’s prognosis using a small number of routinely obtained laboratory values. IMPORTANCE COVID-19 remains the fourth leading cause of death in the United States. Predicting COVID-19 patient prognosis is essential to help efficiently allocate resources, including ventilators and intensive care unit beds, particularly when hospital systems are strained. Our PLABAC and PRABLE models are unique because they accurately assess a COVID-19 patient’s risk of death from only age and five commonly ordered laboratory tests. This simple design is important because it allows these models to be used by clinicians to rapidly assess a patient’s risk of decompensation and serve as a real-time aid when discussing difficult, life-altering decisions for patients. Our models have also shown generalizability to external populations across the United States. In short, these models are practical, efficient tools to assess and communicate COVID-19 prognosis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemBioSame topicCOVID-19 diagnosis using AIFrench-language works237,207