COVID-Net Biochem: an explainability-driven framework to building machine learning models for predicting survival and kidney injury of COVID-19 patients from clinical and biochemistry data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic in 2020, the global community has faced ongoing challenges in controlling and mitigating the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, as well as its evolving subvariants and recombinants. A significant challenge during the pandemic has not only been the accurate detection of positive cases but also the efficient prediction of risks associated with complications and patient survival probabilities. These tasks entail considerable clinical resource allocation and attention. In this study, we introduce COVID-Net Biochem, a versatile and explainable framework for constructing machine learning models. We apply this framework to predict COVID-19 patient survival and the likelihood of developing Acute Kidney Injury during hospitalization, utilizing clinical and biochemical data in a transparent, systematic approach. The proposed approach advances machine learning model design by seamlessly integrating domain expertise with explainability tools, enabling model decisions to be based on key biomarkers. This fosters a more transparent and interpretable decision-making process made by machines specifically for medical applications. More specifically, the framework comprises two phases: In the first phase, referred to as the "clinician-guided design" phase, the dataset is preprocessed using explainable AI and domain expert input. To better demonstrate this phase, we prepared a benchmark dataset of carefully curated clinical and biochemical markers based on clinician assessments for survival and kidney injury prediction in COVID-19 patients. This dataset was selected from a patient cohort of 1366 individuals at Stony Brook University. Moreover, we designed and trained a diverse collection of machine learning models, encompassing gradient-based boosting tree architectures and deep transformer architectures, specifically for survival and kidney injury prediction based on the selected markers. In the second phase, called the "explainability-driven design refinement" phase, the proposed framework employs explainability methods to not only gain a deeper understanding of each model's decision-making process but also to identify the overall impact of individual clinical and biochemical markers for bias identification. In this context, we used the models constructed in the previous phase for the prediction task and analyzed the explainability outcomes alongside a clinician with over 8 years of experience to gain a deeper understanding of the clinical validity of the decisions made. The explainability-driven insights obtained, in conjunction with the associated clinical feedback, are then utilized to guide and refine the training policies and architectural design iteratively. This process aims to enhance not only the prediction performance but also the clinical validity and trustworthiness of the final machine learning models. Employing the proposed explainability-driven framework, we attained 93.55% accuracy in survival prediction and 88.05% accuracy in predicting kidney injury complications. The models have been made available through an open-source platform. Although not a production-ready solution, this study aims to serve as a catalyst for clinical scientists, machine learning researchers, and citizen scientists to develop innovative and trustworthy clinical decision support solutions, ultimately assisting clinicians worldwide in managing pandemic outcomes.
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 | 0.006 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".