Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33108316›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2020

An Easy-to-Use Machine Learning Model to Predict the Prognosis of Patients With COVID-19: Retrospective Cohort Study.

Hyung-Jun Kim, Deokjae Han, Jeong-Han Kim, Daehyun Kim, Beomman Ha, Woong Seog, Yeon-Kyeng Lee, Dosang Lim, Sung Ok Hong, Mi-Jin Park and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
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 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. AI-powered in silico twins: redefining precision medicine through simulation, personalization, and predictive healthcare.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2025
    Review
  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. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hyung-Jun Kim *Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Armed Forces Capital Hospital, Seongnam, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-1984-8864
Deokjae Han *Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Armed Forces Capital Hospital, Seongnam, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-3203-0752
Jeong-Han KimDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Armed Forces Capital Hospital, Seongnam, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-5117-4893
Daehyun KimDepartment of Periodontology, Armed Forces Capital Hospital, Seongnam, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-6713-2679
Beomman HaThe Armed Forces Medical Command, Seongnam, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-0420-5380
Woong SeogThe Armed Forces Medical Command, Seongnam, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-5016-6103
Yeon-Kyeng LeeDivision of Chronic Disease Control, Korea Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Cheongju, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-0828-455X
Dosang LimDivision of Chronic Disease Control, Korea Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Cheongju, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-1897-149X
Sung Ok HongDivision of Chronic Disease Control, Korea Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Cheongju, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-0787-4267
Mi-Jin ParkDivision of Chronic Disease Control, Korea Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Cheongju, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-3871-0468
JoonNyung HeoThe Armed Forces Medical Command, Seongnam, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-6287-6348
Armed Forces Capital Hospital · KRKorea Center for Disease Control and Prevention · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrioritizing patients in need of intensive care is necessary to reduce the mortality rate during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although several scoring methods have been introduced, many require laboratory or radiographic findings that are not always easily available.

objectiveThe purpose of this study was to develop a machine learning model that predicts the need for intensive care for patients with COVID-19 using easily obtainable characteristics-baseline demographics, comorbidities, and symptoms.

methodsA retrospective study was performed using a nationwide cohort in South Korea. Patients admitted to 100 hospitals from January 25, 2020, to June 3, 2020, were included. Patient information was collected retrospectively by the attending physicians in each hospital and uploaded to an online case report form. Variables that could be easily provided were extracted. The variables were age, sex, smoking history, body temperature, comorbidities, activities of daily living, and symptoms. The primary outcome was the need for intensive care, defined as admission to the intensive care unit, use of extracorporeal life support, mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, or death within 30 days of hospitalization. Patients admitted until March 20, 2020, were included in the derivation group to develop prediction models using an automated machine learning technique. The models were externally validated in patients admitted after March 21, 2020. The machine learning model with the best discrimination performance was selected and compared against the CURB-65 (confusion, urea, respiratory rate, blood pressure, and 65 years of age or older) score using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).

resultsA total of 4787 patients were included in the analysis, of which 3294 were assigned to the derivation group and 1493 to the validation group. Among the 4787 patients, 460 (9.6%) patients needed intensive care. Of the 55 machine learning models developed, the XGBoost model revealed the highest discrimination performance. The AUC of the XGBoost model was 0.897 (95% CI 0.877-0.917) for the derivation group and 0.885 (95% CI 0.855-0.915) for the validation group. Both the AUCs were superior to those of CURB-65, which were 0.836 (95% CI 0.825-0.847) and 0.843 (95% CI 0.829-0.857), respectively.

conclusionsWe developed a machine learning model comprising simple patient-provided characteristics, which can efficiently predict the need for intensive care among patients with COVID-19.

Indexed as

Cohort StudiesCOVID-19FemaleHumansMachine LearningMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisRetrospective StudiesSurvival AnalysisCOVID-19machine learningprognosisSARS-CoV-2severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

Identifiers

PMID33108316
PMCPMC7655730
OpenAlexW3094359889

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.