Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33509388›Full record

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.

Andrew A S Soltan, Samaneh Kouchaki, Tingting Zhu, Dani Kiyasseh, Thomas Taylor, Zaamin B Hussain, Tim Peto, Andrew J Brent, David W Eyre, David A Clifton

Open access · goldAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
10.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 136 citations in OpenAlex.

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

4 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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Andrew A S SoltanJohn Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK; Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: andrew.soltan@cardiov.ox.ac.uk.
Samaneh KouchakiInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Centre for Vision, Speech and Signal Processing, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Tingting ZhuInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Dani KiyassehInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Thomas TaylorInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Zaamin B HussainHarvard Graduate School of Education and Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston MA, USA.
Tim PetoJohn Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK; Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, University of Oxford and Public Health England, Oxford, UK.
Andrew J BrentJohn Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK; Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
David W EyreJohn Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK; Big Data Institute, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, University of Oxford and Public Health England, Oxford, UK.
David A CliftonInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
University of Oxford · GBHarvard University · USJohn Radcliffe Hospital · GBPublic Health England · GBUniversity of Surrey · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_19049Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligenceCOVID-19Hematologic TestsMass ScreeningPredictive Value of TestsTriageAdultEmergency Service, HospitalHospitalizationHospitalsHumansMiddle AgedProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID33509388
PMCPMC7831998
OpenAlexW3110677219

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.