Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33301417›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2020

Computing SARS-CoV-2 Infection Risk From Symptoms, Imaging, and Test Data: Diagnostic Model Development.

Christopher D'Ambrosia, Henrik Christensen, Eliah Aronoff-Spencer

Abstract 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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Christopher D'AmbrosiaDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3748-995X
Henrik ChristensenDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7465-7502
Eliah Aronoff-SpencerDivision of Infectious Diseases and Global Public Health, School of Medicine, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6279-5027

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAssigning meaningful probabilities of SARS-CoV-2 infection risk presents a diagnostic challenge across the continuum of care.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to develop and clinically validate an adaptable, personalized diagnostic model to assist clinicians in ruling in and ruling out COVID-19 in potential patients. We compared the diagnostic performance of probabilistic, graphical, and machine learning models against a previously published benchmark model.

methodsWe integrated patient symptoms and test data using machine learning and Bayesian inference to quantify individual patient risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We trained models with 100,000 simulated patient profiles based on 13 symptoms and estimated local prevalence, imaging, and molecular diagnostic performance from published reports. We tested these models with consecutive patients who presented with a COVID-19-compatible illness at the University of California San Diego Medical Center over the course of 14 days starting in March 2020.

resultsWe included 55 consecutive patients with fever (n=43, 78%) or cough (n=42, 77%) presenting for ambulatory (n=11, 20%) or hospital care (n=44, 80%). In total, 51% (n=28) were female and 49% (n=27) were aged <60 years. Common comorbidities included diabetes (n=12, 22%), hypertension (n=15, 27%), cancer (n=9, 16%), and cardiovascular disease (n=7, 13%). Of these, 69% (n=38) were confirmed via reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection, and 20% (n=11) had repeated negative nucleic acid testing and an alternate diagnosis. Bayesian inference network, distance metric learning, and ensemble models discriminated between patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and alternate diagnoses with sensitivities of 81.6%-84.2%, specificities of 58.8%-70.6%, and accuracies of 61.4%-71.8%. After integrating imaging and laboratory test statistics with the predictions of the Bayesian inference network, changes in diagnostic uncertainty at each step in the simulated clinical evaluation process were highly sensitive to location, symptom, and diagnostic test choices.

conclusionsDecision support models that incorporate symptoms and available test results can help providers diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection in real-world settings.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalMachine LearningSymptom AssessmentAgedAged, 80 and overBayes TheoremBenchmarkingCaliforniaComorbidityCoughCOVID-19COVID-19 TestingFemaleFeverHumansMaleBayesiancomputationCOVID-19diagnostichealthimaginginfectioninformaticsmachine learningmodelprobabilityrisksymptom

Identifiers

PMID33301417
PMCPMC7746395

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.