Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32607737›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical systems2020

Detection of COVID-19 Infection from Routine Blood Exams with Machine Learning: A Feasibility Study.

Davide Brinati, Andrea Campagner, Davide Ferrari, Massimo Locatelli, Giuseppe Banfi, Federico Cabitza

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical systems, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 137 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
137citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
31.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

137 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 353 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

77 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Davide BrinatiDISCo, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, Viale Sarca 336, Milano, 20126, Italy.
Andrea CampagnerDISCo, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, Viale Sarca 336, Milano, 20126, Italy.
Davide FerrariSCVSA Department, University of Parma, Parco Area delle Science 11/a, 43124, Parman, Italy.
Massimo LocatelliLaboratory Medicine Service, San Raffaele Hospital, Via Olgettina, 60, 20132, Milano, Italy.
Giuseppe BanfiIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Via Riccardo Galeazzi, 4, 20161, Milano, Italy.
Federico CabitzaDISCo, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, Viale Sarca 336, Milano, 20126, Italy. federico.cabitza@unimib.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4065-3415
University of Milano-Bicocca · ITIstituto Ortopedico Galeazzi · ITUniversity of Parma · ITVita-Salute San Raffaele University · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemia due to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, in its first 4 months since its outbreak, has to date reached more than 200 countries worldwide with more than 2 million confirmed cases (probably a much higher number of infected), and almost 200,000 deaths. Amplification of viral RNA by (real time) reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) is the current gold standard test for confirmation of infection, although it presents known shortcomings: long turnaround times (3-4 hours to generate results), potential shortage of reagents, false-negative rates as large as 15-20%, the need for certified laboratories, expensive equipment and trained personnel. Thus there is a need for alternative, faster, less expensive and more accessible tests. We developed two machine learning classification models using hematochemical values from routine blood exams (namely: white blood cells counts, and the platelets, CRP, AST, ALT, GGT, ALP, LDH plasma levels) drawn from 279 patients who, after being admitted to the San Raffaele Hospital (Milan, Italy) emergency-room with COVID-19 symptoms, were screened with the rRT-PCR test performed on respiratory tract specimens. Of these patients, 177 resulted positive, whereas 102 received a negative response. We have developed two machine learning models, to discriminate between patients who are either positive or negative to the SARS-CoV-2: their accuracy ranges between 82% and 86%, and sensitivity between 92% e 95%, so comparably well with respect to the gold standard. We also developed an interpretable Decision Tree model as a simple decision aid for clinician interpreting blood tests (even off-line) for COVID-19 suspect cases. This study demonstrated the feasibility and clinical soundness of using blood tests analysis and machine learning as an alternative to rRT-PCR for identifying COVID-19 positive patients. This is especially useful in those countries, like developing ones, suffering from shortages of rRT-PCR reagents and specialized laboratories. We made available a Web-based tool for clinical reference and evaluation (This tool is available at https://covid19-blood-ml.herokuapp.com/ ).

Indexed as

Machine LearningBetacoronavirusCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19Hematologic TestsHumansPandemicsPneumonia, ViralReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionSARS-CoV-2Blood testsCOVID-19Machine learningRandom forestRT-PCR testThree-way

Identifiers

PMID32607737
PMCPMC7326624
OpenAlexW3038925693

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.