Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32735549›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2020

Prognostic Modeling of COVID-19 Using Artificial Intelligence in the United Kingdom: Model Development and Validation.

Ahmed Abdulaal, Aatish Patel, Esmita Charani, Sarah Denny, Nabeela Mughal, Luke Moore

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

Ahmed Abdulaal *Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3536-4803
Aatish PatelChelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2503-2602
Esmita CharaniNIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5938-1202
Sarah DennyChelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8248-6053
Nabeela MughalChelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8013-5412
Luke MooreChelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7095-7922

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe current severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak is a public health emergency and the case fatality rate in the United Kingdom is significant. Although there appear to be several early predictors of outcome, there are no currently validated prognostic models or scoring systems applicable specifically to patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2.

objectiveWe aim to create a point-of-admission mortality risk scoring system using an artificial neural network (ANN).

methodsWe present an ANN that can provide a patient-specific, point-of-admission mortality risk prediction to inform clinical management decisions at the earliest opportunity. The ANN analyzes a set of patient features including demographics, comorbidities, smoking history, and presenting symptoms and predicts patient-specific mortality risk during the current hospital admission. The model was trained and validated on data extracted from 398 patients admitted to hospital with a positive real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2.

resultsPatient-specific mortality was predicted with 86.25% accuracy, with a sensitivity of 87.50% (95% CI 61.65%-98.45%) and specificity of 85.94% (95% CI 74.98%-93.36%). The positive predictive value was 60.87% (95% CI 45.23%-74.56%), and the negative predictive value was 96.49% (95% CI 88.23%-99.02%). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 90.12%.

conclusionsThis analysis demonstrates an adaptive ANN trained on data at a single site, which demonstrates the early utility of deep learning approaches in a rapidly evolving pandemic with no established or validated prognostic scoring systems.

Indexed as

BetacoronavirusCoronavirus InfectionsPandemicsPneumonia, ViralAgedAged, 80 and overArtificial IntelligenceComorbidityCOVID-19FemaleHospitalizationHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeural Networks, ComputerPrognosisartificial intelligencecoronavirusCOVID-19deep learningmachine learningmodelingneural networkprediction

Identifiers

PMID32735549
PMCPMC7451108

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.