Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34983496›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2022

Comparing machine learning algorithms for predicting COVID-19 mortality.

Khadijeh Moulaei, Mostafa Shanbehzadeh, Zahra Mohammadi-Taghiabad, Hadi Kazemi-Arpanahi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
21.3field-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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 152 citations in OpenAlex.

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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Khadijeh MoulaeiMedical Informatics Research Center, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.
Mostafa ShanbehzadehDepartment of Health Information Technology, School of Paramedical, Ilam University of Medical Sciences, Ilam, Iran.
Zahra Mohammadi-TaghiabadDepartment of Health Information Management, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.
Hadi Kazemi-ArpanahiDepartment of Health Information Technology, Abadan University of Medical Sciences, Abadan, Iran. h.kazemi@abadanums.ac.ir.
Kerman University of Medical Sciences · IRMedical University of Ilam · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) hospitalized patients are always at risk of death. Machine learning (ML) algorithms can be used as a potential solution for predicting mortality in COVID-19 hospitalized patients. So, our study aimed to compare several ML algorithms to predict the COVID-19 mortality using the patient's data at the first time of admission and choose the best performing algorithm as a predictive tool for decision-making.

methodsIn this study, after feature selection, based on the confirmed predictors, information about 1500 eligible patients (1386 survivors and 144 deaths) obtained from the registry of Ayatollah Taleghani Hospital, Abadan city, Iran, was extracted. Afterwards, several ML algorithms were trained to predict COVID-19 mortality. Finally, to assess the models' performance, the metrics derived from the confusion matrix were calculated.

resultsThe study participants were 1500 patients; the number of men was found to be higher than that of women (836 vs. 664) and the median age was 57.25 years old (interquartile 18-100). After performing the feature selection, out of 38 features, dyspnea, ICU admission, and oxygen therapy were found as the top three predictors. Smoking, alanine aminotransferase, and platelet count were found to be the three lowest predictors of COVID-19 mortality. Experimental results demonstrated that random forest (RF) had better performance than other ML algorithms with accuracy, sensitivity, precision, specificity, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) of 95.03%, 90.70%, 94.23%, 95.10%, and 99.02%, respectively.

conclusionIt was found that ML enables a reasonable level of accuracy in predicting the COVID-19 mortality. Therefore, ML-based predictive models, particularly the RF algorithm, potentially facilitate identifying the patients who are at high risk of mortality and inform proper interventions by the clinicians.

Indexed as

COVID-19AlgorithmsFemaleHumansMachine LearningMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesROC CurveSARS-CoV-2Artificial intelligenceCoronavirusCOVID-19Machine learningPrediction hospital mortality

Identifiers

PMID34983496
PMCPMC8724649
OpenAlexW4205339139

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.