Predicting the Risk of COVID-19 Among Adult Patients With Diabetes: A Machine Learning Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In this study our aim was to develop a machine learning model that could accurately predict the risk of acquiring COVID-19 in community-dwelling adults with type 1 and/or type 2 diabetes in Alberta, Canada. METHODS: This predictive supervised machine learning study included adults (≥18 years old) living in Alberta, Canada, between April 1, 2019, and March 31, 2021, with pre-existing diabetes (n=372,055, excluding 2,541 due to migration; final sample size 369,514). The outcome of interest was a positive severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) polymerase chain reaction test result between March 1, 2020, and March 1, 2021. Model features were extracted from routinely collected Alberta administrative health data from March 1, 2015, to March 1, 2020. Fifteen algorithms were trained on 67% of the data and the top performer (Light Gradient Boost [LGBoost] model) was validated on the remaining 33%. The model was calibrated and model performance was assessed using area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC), area under the precision recall curve (AUPRC), and threshold analyses. RESULTS: Among the 369,514 individuals with diabetes, 140,511 were tested, of whom 13,082 had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. The LGBoost model incorporated 367 features with AUROC and AUPRC of 0.69 and 0.08, respectively. The model was well-calibrated for common risk thresholds (<0.2 probability) with high specificity (≥0.98 at all thresholds); however, sensitivity and positive predictive values were low at all thresholds (≤0.08 and ≤0.18, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The LGBoost model lacked the sensitivity to be clinically useful in predicting SARS-CoV-2 infection in Albertans with diabetes. Alternative data sources may be required to improve future COVID-19 prediction models from the community.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".