Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34214101›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

A machine learning based exploration of COVID-19 mortality risk.

Mahdi Mahdavi, Hadi Choubdar, Erfan Zabeh, Michael Rieder, Safieddin Safavi-Naeini, Zsolt Jobbagy, Amirata Ghorbani, Atefeh Abedini, Arda Kiani, Vida Khanlarzadeh and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

12 authors.

Mahdi MahdaviInstitute of Medical Science and Technology (IMSAT), Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.ORCID 0000-0002-1951-738X
Hadi ChoubdarInstitute of Medical Science and Technology (IMSAT), Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
Erfan ZabehDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-9312-9617
Michael RiederRobarts Research Institute, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada.
Safieddin Safavi-NaeiniCIARS (Centre for Intelligent Antenna and Radio Systems), Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
Zsolt JobbagyDepartment of Pathology, Immunology and Molecular Pathology, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, United States of America.
Amirata GhorbaniDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States of America.
Atefeh AbediniChronic Respiratory Diseases Research Center, National Research Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases (NRITLD), Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Arda KianiTracheal Diseases Research Center, National Research Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases (NRITLD), Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Vida KhanlarzadehDepartment of Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada.
Reza LashgariInstitute of Medical Science and Technology (IMSAT), Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
Ehsan KamraniRobarts Research Institute, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0919-1179

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Early prediction of patient mortality risks during a pandemic can decrease mortality by assuring efficient resource allocation and treatment planning. This study aimed to develop and compare prognosis prediction machine learning models based on invasive laboratory and noninvasive clinical and demographic data from patients' day of admission. Three Support Vector Machine (SVM) models were developed and compared using invasive, non-invasive, and both groups. The results suggested that non-invasive features could provide mortality predictions that are similar to the invasive and roughly on par with the joint model. Feature inspection results from SVM-RFE and sparsity analysis displayed that, compared with the invasive model, the non-invasive model can provide better performances with a fewer number of features, pointing to the presence of high predictive information contents in several non-invasive features, including SPO2, age, and cardiovascular disorders. Furthermore, while the invasive model was able to provide better mortality predictions for the imminent future, non-invasive features displayed better performance for more distant expiration intervals. Early mortality prediction using non-invasive models can give us insights as to where and with whom to intervene. Combined with novel technologies, such as wireless wearable devices, these models can create powerful frameworks for various medical assignments and patient triage.

Indexed as

PandemicsSARS-CoV-2Support Vector MachineAdultAgedAged, 80 and overComorbidityCOVID-19Electronic Health RecordsFemaleForecastingHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, TheoreticalRisk

Identifiers

PMID34214101
PMCPMC8253432

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.