Validation of sTREM-1 and IL-6 based algorithms for outcome prediction of COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A prospective observational cohort study of COVID-19 patients in a single Emergency Department (ED) showed that sTREM-1- and IL-6-based algorithms were highly predictive of adverse outcome (Van Singer et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2021). We aim to validate the performance of these algorithms at ED presentation. METHODS: This multicentric prospective observational study of PCR-confirmed COVID-19 adult patients was conducted in the ED of three Swiss hospitals. Data of the three centers were retrospectively completed and merged. We determined the predictive accuracy of the sTREM-1-based algorithm for 30-day intubation/mortality. We also determined the performance of the IL-6-based algorithm using data from one center for 30-day oxygen requirement. RESULTS: 373 patients were included in the validation cohort, 139 (37%) in Lausanne, 93 (25%) in St.Gallen and 141 (38%) in EOC. Overall, 18% (93/373) patients died or were intubated by day 30. In Lausanne, 66% (92/139) patients required oxygen by day 30. The predictive accuracy of sTREM-1 and IL-6 were similar compared to the derivation cohort. The sTREM-1-based algorithm confirmed excellent sensitivity (90% versus 100% in the derivation cohort) and negative predictive value (94% versus 100%) for 30-day intubation/mortality. The IL-6-based algorithm performance was acceptable with a sensitivity of 85% versus 98% in the derivation cohort and a negative predictive value of 60% versus 92%. CONCLUSION: The sTREM-1 algorithm demonstrated good reproducibility. A prospective randomized controlled trial, comparing outcomes with and without the algorithm, is necessary to assess its safety and impact on hospital and ICU admission rates. The IL-6 algorithm showed acceptable validity in a single center and need additional validation before widespread implementation.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".