Application of boosted trees to the prognosis prediction of COVID‐19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims: The precise prediction of COVID-19 prognosis remains a clinical challenge. In this regard, early identification of severe cases facilitates the triage and management of COVID-19 cases. The present paper aims to explore the prognosis of COVID-19 patients based on routine laboratory tests taken when patients are admitted. Methods: A data set including 1455 COVID-19 patients (727 male, 728 female) and their routine laboratory tests conducted upon hospital admission, age, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission, and outcome were gathered. The data set was randomly split into the train (75% of the data) and test data set (25% of the data). The explainable boosting machine (EBM) and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) were used for predicting the mortality and ICU admission of COVID-19 cases. Also, feature importance was extracted using EBM and XGBoost. Results: The EBM and XGBoost achieved 86.38% and 88.56% accuracy in the test data set, respectively. In addition, EBM and XGBoost predicted the ICU admission with an accuracy of 89.37%, and 79.29% in the test data set for COVID-19 patients, respectively. Also, obtained models indicated that aspartate transaminase (AST), lymphocyte, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), and age are the most significant predictors of COVID-19 mortality. Furthermore, the lymphocyte count, AST, and BUN level were the most significant ICU admission predictors of COVID-19 patients. Conclusions: The current study indicated that both EBM and XGBoost could predict the ICU admission and mortality of COVID-19 cases based on routine hematological and clinical chemistry evaluation at the time of admission. Also, based on the results, AST, lymphocyte count, and BUN levels could be used as early predictors of 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".