Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32812204›Full record

ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2020

Utilization of machine-learning models to accurately predict the risk for critical COVID-19.

Dan Assaf, Ya'ara Gutman, Yair Neuman, Gad Segal, Sharon Amit, Shiraz Gefen-Halevi, Noya Shilo, Avi Epstein, Ronit Mor-Cohen, Asaf Biber and 3 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 97 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
97citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

97 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 283 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  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. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

37 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

13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Dan AssafSackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Ya'ara GutmanSackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Yair NeumanThe Department of Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel.
Gad SegalSackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Sharon AmitSackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Shiraz Gefen-HaleviSackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Noya ShiloSackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Avi EpsteinSackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Ronit Mor-CohenSackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Asaf BiberSackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Galia RahavSackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Itzchak LevySackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Amit TiroshSackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. amit.tirosh@sheba.health.gov.il.
Sheba Medical Center · ILTel Aviv University · ILBen-Gurion University of the Negev · IL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Among patients with Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), the ability to identify patients at risk for deterioration during their hospital stay is essential for effective patient allocation and management. To predict patient risk for critical COVID-19 based on status at admission using machine-learning models. Retrospective study based on a database of tertiary medical center with designated departments for patients with COVID-19. Patients with severe COVID-19 at admission, based on low oxygen saturation, low partial arterial oxygen pressure, were excluded. The primary outcome was risk for critical disease, defined as mechanical ventilation, multi-organ failure, admission to the ICU, and/or death. Three different machine-learning models were used to predict patient deterioration and compared to currently suggested predictors and to the APACHEII risk-prediction score. Among 6995 patients evaluated, 162 were hospitalized with non-severe COVID-19, of them, 25 (15.4%) patients deteriorated to critical COVID-19. Machine-learning models outperformed the all other parameters, including the APACHE II score (ROC AUC of 0.92 vs. 0.79, respectively), reaching 88.0% sensitivity, 92.7% specificity and 92.0% accuracy in predicting critical COVID-19. The most contributory variables to the models were APACHE II score, white blood cell count, time from symptoms to admission, oxygen saturation and blood lymphocytes count. Machine-learning models demonstrated high efficacy in predicting critical COVID-19 compared to the most efficacious tools available. Hence, artificial intelligence may be applied for accurate risk prediction of patients with COVID-19, to optimize patients triage and in-hospital allocation, better prioritization of medical resources and improved overall management of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAPACHECoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19Critical IllnessFemaleHospitalizationHumansMachine LearningMaleMiddle AgedPandemicsPneumonia, ViralRetrospective StudiesCOVID-19Disease severityMachine learningPredictionRisk stratification

Identifiers

PMID32812204
PMCPMC7433773
OpenAlexW3070886816

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.