Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34661530›Full record

ArticleeLife2021

Early prediction of in-hospital death of COVID-19 patients: a machine-learning model based on age, blood analyses, and chest x-ray score.

Emirena Garrafa, Marika Vezzoli, Marco Ravanelli, Davide Farina, Andrea Borghesi, Stefano Calza, Roberto Maroldi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Deep Survival Analysis With Clinical Variables for COVID-19.IEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Supervised Pretraining through Contrastive Categorical Positive Samplings to Improve COVID-19 Mortality Prediction.ACM-BCB ... ... : the ... ACM Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology and Biomedicine. ACM Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology and Biomedicine · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Emirena Garrafa *Department of Molecular and Translational Medicine, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4761-6892
Marika Vezzoli *Department of Molecular and Translational Medicine, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Marco RavanelliDepartment of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4841-2771
Davide FarinaDepartment of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Andrea BorghesiDepartment of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Stefano CalzaDepartment of Molecular and Translational Medicine, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Roberto MaroldiDepartment of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale degli Spedali Civili di Brescia · ITBrescia University · US

Funding

Italian Ministry of University and Research PRIN 20178S4EK9Stefano Calza PRIN 20178S4EK9
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An early-warning model to predict in-hospital mortality on admission of COVID-19 patients at an emergency department (ED) was developed and validated using a machine-learning model. In total, 2782 patients were enrolled between March 2020 and December 2020, including 2106 patients (first wave) and 676 patients (second wave) in the COVID-19 outbreak in Italy. The first-wave patients were divided into two groups with 1474 patients used to train the model, and 632 to validate it. The 676 patients in the second wave were used to test the model. Age, 17 blood analytes, and Brescia chest X-ray score were the variables processed using a random forests classification algorithm to build and validate the model. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to assess the model performances. A web-based death-risk calculator was implemented and integrated within the Laboratory Information System of the hospital. The final score was constructed by age (the most powerful predictor), blood analytes (the strongest predictors were lactate dehydrogenase, D-dimer, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, C-reactive protein, lymphocyte %, ferritin std, and monocyte %), and Brescia chest X-ray score (https://bdbiomed.shinyapps.io/covid19score/). The areas under the ROC curve obtained for the three groups (training, validating, and testing) were 0.98, 0.83, and 0.78, respectively. The model predicts in-hospital mortality on the basis of data that can be obtained in a short time, directly at the ED on admission. It functions as a web-based calculator, providing a risk score which is easy to interpret. It can be used in the triage process to support the decision on patient allocation.

Indexed as

Hospital MortalityMachine LearningAgedAged, 80 and overAlgorithmsCOVID-19Emergency Service, HospitalFemaleHospitalsHumansItalyMaleMiddle AgedRisk FactorsROC CurveSARS-CoV-2biochemistrybiomarkerchemical biologyCOVID-19medicinenonePDPrandom forestsSMOTEVIM

Identifiers

PMID34661530
PMCPMC8550757
OpenAlexW3207884352

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.