Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34869483›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2021

Automatic Classification Between COVID-19 and Non-COVID-19 Pneumonia Using Symptoms, Comorbidities, and Laboratory Findings: The Khorshid COVID Cohort Study.

Hamid Reza Marateb, Farzad Ziaie Nezhad, Mohammad Reza Mohebian, Ramin Sami, Shaghayegh Haghjooy Javanmard, Fatemeh Dehghan Niri, Mahsa Akafzadeh-Savari, Marjan Mansourian, Miquel Angel Mañanas, Martin Wolkewitz and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Hamid Reza MaratebThe Biomedical Engineering Department, Engineering Faculty, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.
Farzad Ziaie NezhadThe Biomedical Engineering Department, Engineering Faculty, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.
Mohammad Reza MohebianDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.
Ramin SamiDepartment of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Shaghayegh Haghjooy JavanmardDepartment of Physiology, Applied Physiology Research Center, School of Medicine, Cardiovascular Research Institute, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Fatemeh Dehghan NiriSchool of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Mahsa Akafzadeh-SavariIsfahan Clinical Toxicology Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Marjan MansourianAutomatic Control Department (ESAII), Biomedical Engineering Research Centre (CREB), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya-Barcelona Tech (UPC), Barcelona, Spain.
Miquel Angel MañanasAutomatic Control Department (ESAII), Biomedical Engineering Research Centre (CREB), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya-Barcelona Tech (UPC), Barcelona, Spain.
Martin WolkewitzFaculty of Medicine and Medical Center, Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Harald BinderFaculty of Medicine and Medical Center, Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · IRUniversity of Freiburg · DEUniversity of Isfahan · IRUniversitat Politècnica de Catalunya · ESUniversity of Saskatchewan · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Coronavirus disease-2019, also known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was a disaster in 2020. Accurate and early diagnosis of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is still essential for health policymaking. Reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) has been performed as the operational gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis. We aimed to design and implement a reliable COVID-19 diagnosis method to provide the risk of infection using demographics, symptoms and signs, blood markers, and family history of diseases to have excellent agreement with the results obtained by the RT-PCR and CT-scan. Our study primarily used sample data from a 1-year hospital-based prospective COVID-19 open-cohort, the Khorshid COVID Cohort (KCC) study. A sample of 634 patients with COVID-19 and 118 patients with pneumonia with similar characteristics whose RT-PCR and chest CT scan were negative (as the control group) (dataset 1) was used to design the system and for internal validation. Two other online datasets, namely, some symptoms (dataset 2) and blood tests (dataset 3), were also analyzed. A combination of one-hot encoding, stability feature selection, over-sampling, and an ensemble classifier was used. Ten-fold stratified cross-validation was performed. In addition to gender and symptom duration, signs and symptoms, blood biomarkers, and comorbidities were selected. Performance indices of the cross-validated confusion matrix for dataset 1 were as follows: sensitivity of 96% [confidence interval, CI, 95%: 94-98], specificity of 95% [90-99], positive predictive value (PPV) of 99% [98-100], negative predictive value (NPV) of 82% [76-89], diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 496 [198-1,245], area under the ROC (AUC) of 0.96 [0.94-0.97], Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC) of 0.87 [0.85-0.88], accuracy of 96% [94-98], and Cohen's Kappa of 0.86 [0.81-0.91]. The proposed algorithm showed excellent diagnosis accuracy and class-labeling agreement, and fair discriminant power. The AUC on the datasets 2 and 3 was 0.97 [0.96-0.98] and 0.92 [0.91-0.94], respectively. The most important feature was white blood cell count, shortness of breath, and C-reactive protein for datasets 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The proposed algorithm is, thus, a promising COVID-19 diagnosis method, which could be an amendment to simple blood tests and screening of symptoms. However, the RT-PCR and chest CT-scan, performed as the gold standard, are not 100% accurate.

Indexed as

computer-aided diagnosisCOVID-19machine learningscreeningvalidation studies

Identifiers

PMID34869483
PMCPMC8640954
OpenAlexW3214593353

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.