Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35177406›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2022

Early identification of patients admitted to hospital for covid-19 at risk of clinical deterioration: model development and multisite external validation study.

Fahad Kamran, Shengpu Tang, Erkin Otles, Dustin S McEvoy, Sameh N Saleh, Jen Gong, Benjamin Y Li, Sayon Dutta, Xinran Liu, Richard J Medford and 10 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

Fahad KamranDivision of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Michigan College of Engineering, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.
Shengpu TangDivision of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Michigan College of Engineering, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.
Erkin OtlesDepartment of Industrial and Operations Engineering, University of Michigan College of Engineering, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Dustin S McEvoyMass General Brigham Digital Health eCare, Somerville, MA, USA.
Sameh N SalehDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Jen GongCenter for Clinical Informatics and Improvement Research, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Benjamin Y LiDivision of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Michigan College of Engineering, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.
Sayon DuttaMass General Brigham Digital Health eCare, Somerville, MA, USA.
Xinran LiuDivision of Hospital Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Richard J MedfordDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Thomas S ValleyInstitute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Lauren R WestInfection Control Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Karandeep SinghInstitute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Seth BlumbergDivision of Hospital Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
John P DonnellyInstitute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Erica S ShenoyInfection Control Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
John Z AyanianInstitute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Brahmajee K NallamothuInstitute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Michael W SjodingInstitute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Jenna WiensDivision of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Michigan College of Engineering, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA wiensj@umich.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-1057-7722

Funding

MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCIENTIST TRAINING PROGRAMT32GM007863 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI COLLINS, KATHLEEN L. · 1985 to 2024
$38.3M
SCH: Leveraging Clinical Time Series to Learn Optimal Treatment of Acute Dyspnea R01LM013325 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI SJODING, MICHAEL WILLIAM, WIENS, JENNA · 2019 to 2022
$935k
NCEZID CDC HHS U01 CK000590NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM007863NLM NIH HHS R01 LM013325
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo create and validate a simple and transferable machine learning model from electronic health record data to accurately predict clinical deterioration in patients with covid-19 across institutions, through use of a novel paradigm for model development and code sharing.

designRetrospective cohort study.

settingOne US hospital during 2015-21 was used for model training and internal validation. External validation was conducted on patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 at 12 other US medical centers during 2020-21.

participants33 119 adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital with respiratory distress or covid-19.

main outcome measuresAn ensemble of linear models was trained on the development cohort to predict a composite outcome of clinical deterioration within the first five days of hospital admission, defined as in-hospital mortality or any of three treatments indicating severe illness: mechanical ventilation, heated high flow nasal cannula, or intravenous vasopressors. The model was based on nine clinical and personal characteristic variables selected from 2686 variables available in the electronic health record. Internal and external validation performance was measured using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and the expected calibration error-the difference between predicted risk and actual risk. Potential bed day savings were estimated by calculating how many bed days hospitals could save per patient if low risk patients identified by the model were discharged early.

results9291 covid-19 related hospital admissions at 13 medical centers were used for model validation, of which 1510 (16.3%) were related to the primary outcome. When the model was applied to the internal validation cohort, it achieved an AUROC of 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.77 to 0.84) and an expected calibration error of 0.01 (95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.02). Performance was consistent when validated in the 12 external medical centers (AUROC range 0.77-0.84), across subgroups of sex, age, race, and ethnicity (AUROC range 0.78-0.84), and across quarters (AUROC range 0.73-0.83). Using the model to triage low risk patients could potentially save up to 7.8 bed days per patient resulting from early discharge.

conclusionA model to predict clinical deterioration was developed rapidly in response to the covid-19 pandemic at a single hospital, was applied externally without the sharing of data, and performed well across multiple medical centers, patient subgroups, and time periods, showing its potential as a tool for use in optimizing healthcare resources.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision RulesMachine LearningAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overArea Under CurveClinical DeteriorationCOVID-19Electronic Health RecordsFemaleHospitalizationHospitalsHumansLinear ModelsMale

Identifiers

PMID35177406
PMCPMC8850910

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.