ArticleThe Lancet. Digital health2021
Rapid triage for COVID-19 using routine clinical data for patients attending hospital: development and prospective validation of an artificial intelligence screening test.
Article in The Lancet. Digital health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
64 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 136 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of artificial intelligence in triage in emergencies and disasters: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2024Pooled it
- The accuracy of machine learning approaches using non-image data for the prediction of COVID-19: A meta-analysis.International journal of medical informatics · 2022Pooled it
- Psychometric evaluation of the Symptoms of Infection with Coronavirus-19 (SIC): results from a cross-sectional study and a phase 3 clinical trial.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2023Trial
- Mitigating algorithmic unfairness arising from forgetfulness of medical records in clinical artificial intelligence.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Grounded large language models for diagnostic prediction in real-world emergency department settings.JAMIA open · 2025Article
- Rigorous validation of machine learning in laboratory medicine: guidance toward quality improvement.Critical reviews in clinical laboratory sciences · 2025Review
- Utilizing machine learning to predict hospital admissions for pediatric COVID-19 patients (PrepCOVID-Machine).Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The possibilities of prospective assessment of SARS-CoV-2 infection risk based on an artificial neural network model - a cross-sectional andArchives of medical science : AMS · 2025Article
- Enhancing Efficiency with an AI-Augmented Clinician in Neurology.Aging and disease · 2024Article
- Generalizability assessment of AI models across hospitals in a low-middle and high income country.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Machine learning in diagnostic support in medical emergency departments.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Addressing label noise for electronic health records: insights from computer vision for tabular data.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Mitigating machine learning bias between high income and low-middle income countries for enhanced model fairness and generalizability.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Tackling the Antimicrobial Resistance "Pandemic" with Machine Learning Tools: A Summary of Available Evidence.Microorganisms · 2024Review
- Preliminary Evidence of the Use of Generative AI in Health Care Clinical Services: Systematic Narrative Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2024Review
- Triage in major incidents: development and external validation of novel machine learning-derived primary and secondary triage tools.Emergency medicine journal : EMJ · 2024Article
- Reverse shock index multiplied by simplified motor score as a predictor of clinical outcomes for patients with COVID-19.BMC emergency medicine · 2024Article
- SuPAR, biomarkers of inflammation, and severe outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19: The International Study of Inflammation in COVID-19.Journal of medical virology · 2024Observational
- Article
- Who should decide how limited healthcare resources are prioritized? Autonomous technology as a compelling alternative to humans.PloS one · 2024Article
4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe early clinical course of COVID-19 can be difficult to distinguish from other illnesses driving presentation to hospital. However, viral-specific PCR testing has limited sensitivity and results can take up to 72 h for operational reasons. We aimed to develop and validate two early-detection models for COVID-19, screening for the disease among patients attending the emergency department and the subset being admitted to hospital, using routinely collected health-care data (laboratory tests, blood gas measurements, and vital signs). These data are typically available within the first hour of presentation to hospitals in high-income and middle-income countries, within the existing laboratory infrastructure.
methodsWe trained linear and non-linear machine learning classifiers to distinguish patients with COVID-19 from pre-pandemic controls, using electronic health record data for patients presenting to the emergency department and admitted across a group of four teaching hospitals in Oxfordshire, UK (Oxford University Hospitals). Data extracted included presentation blood tests, blood gas testing, vital signs, and results of PCR testing for respiratory viruses. Adult patients (>18 years) presenting to hospital before Dec 1, 2019 (before the first COVID-19 outbreak), were included in the COVID-19-negative cohort; those presenting to hospital between Dec 1, 2019, and April 19, 2020, with PCR-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection were included in the COVID-19-positive cohort. Patients who were subsequently admitted to hospital were included in their respective COVID-19-negative or COVID-19-positive admissions cohorts. Models were calibrated to sensitivities of 70%, 80%, and 90% during training, and performance was initially assessed on a held-out test set generated by an 80:20 split stratified by patients with COVID-19 and balanced equally with pre-pandemic controls. To simulate real-world performance at different stages of an epidemic, we generated test sets with varying prevalences of COVID-19 and assessed predictive values for our models. We prospectively validated our 80% sensitivity models for all patients presenting or admitted to the Oxford University Hospitals between April 20 and May 6, 2020, comparing model predictions with PCR test results.
findingsWe assessed 155 689 adult patients presenting to hospital between Dec 1, 2017, and April 19, 2020. 114 957 patients were included in the COVID-negative cohort and 437 in the COVID-positive cohort, for a full study population of 115 394 patients, with 72 310 admitted to hospital. With a sensitive configuration of 80%, our emergency department (ED) model achieved 77·4% sensitivity and 95·7% specificity (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC] 0·939) for COVID-19 among all patients attending hospital, and the admissions model achieved 77·4% sensitivity and 94·8% specificity (AUROC 0·940) for the subset of patients admitted to hospital. Both models achieved high negative predictive values (NPV; >98·5%) across a range of prevalences (≤5%). We prospectively validated our models for all patients presenting and admitted to Oxford University Hospitals in a 2-week test period. The ED model (3326 patients) achieved 92·3% accuracy (NPV 97·6%, AUROC 0·881), and the admissions model (1715 patients) achieved 92·5% accuracy (97·7%, 0·871) in comparison with PCR results. Sensitivity analyses to account for uncertainty in negative PCR results improved apparent accuracy (ED model 95·1%, admissions model 94·1%) and NPV (ED model 99·0%, admissions model 98·5%).
interpretationOur models performed effectively as a screening test for COVID-19, excluding the illness with high-confidence by use of clinical data routinely available within 1 h of presentation to hospital. Our approach is rapidly scalable, fitting within the existing laboratory testing infrastructure and standard of care of hospitals in high-income and middle-income countries.
fundingWellcome Trust, University of Oxford, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.