MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409035747 · doi:10.54364/aaiml.2025.51204

Predicting COVID-19 Outcomes Among Albertans With Diabetes and COVID-19: A Machine Learning Approach

2025· article· en· W4409035747 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dean T. Eurich, Darren Lau, Weiting Li, Olivia Weaver, Tanya Joon, Ming Ye, Finlay A McAlister, Padma Kaul, Salim Samanani

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Diabetes mellitusBetacoronavirusVirologyMedicineInternal medicineDiseaseOutbreak

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Certain patients with diabetes and COVID-19 are at high risk of severe outcomes. Identification of risk factors among this group is required to risk-stratify those who may benefit from further surveillance. We aimed to develop machine learning (ML) models predicting severe outcomes among individuals with diabetes and COVID-19 in Alberta, Canada. Methods: Patients with diabetes and COVID-19 determined by PCR test administered in community and/or emergency department (ED) settings (March 2020-March 2021) were included. Outcomes were ED visit, hospitalization or death for those tested in the community (“Community cohort”) and hospitalization or death for those tested in ED (“ED cohort”), and in the combined cohorts (“Community+ED cohort”). Outcomes and features (sociodemographics, drug/healthcare utilization, health history) were identified using healthcare administrative data (2008-2021). Calibration plots, areas under the receiver operating curve, precision-recall curves (AUC, AUPRC), and threshold analyses were used to assess the models. Results: The Community cohort included 11,247 individuals (1,665 ED visits; 756 hospitalizations; 421 deaths). AUCs for models predicting ED/hospitalization/death were 0.65/0.70/0.93. The AUCs for predicting death in ED (1,495 individuals; 169 deaths) and Community+ED (12,410 individuals; 582 deaths) cohorts were 0.82 and 0.93. Models predicting hospitalization in these cohorts performed poorly and are not reported. Of all models, that predicting death from the Community performed best (sensitivity 0.77, specificity 0.91, positive predictive value 0.26, negative predictive value 0.99), and improved the prediction of death at a 10% risk threshold (compared to the pre-test probability, positive likelihood ratio 9.06 and negative likelihood ratio 0.25). Conclusion: Identifying diabetes patients at the highest risk of the worst outcomes would assist in triaging patients to ensure appropriate resource use in times of high demand. Overall, the model predicting death among patients with diabetes and COVID-19 in the community could be useful in identifying who requires additional care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.678
Threshold uncertainty score0.641

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Artificial Intelligence and Machine LearningSame topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207