ArticleThe Lancet. Digital health2022
Real-world evaluation of rapid and laboratory-free COVID-19 triage for emergency care: external validation and pilot deployment of artificial intelligence driven screening.
Article in The Lancet. Digital health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07432061 (Prediction of Infectious Diseases in LMICs Using Electronic Health Record Data), which is not on this map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Prediction of Infectious Diseases in LMICs Using Electronic Health Record Data
Who cites it
29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implementing AI in Hospitals to Achieve a Learning Health System: Systematic Review of Current Enablers and Barriers.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Clinical prediction models for diagnosis of COVID-19 among adult patients: a validation and agreement study.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Pooled it
- Mitigating algorithmic unfairness arising from forgetfulness of medical records in clinical artificial intelligence.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Auxiliary diagnosis of periprosthesis joint infection by leukocyte esterase strips test using a deep learning model.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025Article
- Rigorous validation of machine learning in laboratory medicine: guidance toward quality improvement.Critical reviews in clinical laboratory sciences · 2025Review
- Mapping and Summarizing the Research on AI Systems for Automating Medical History Taking and Triage: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- AI-driven transformation of precision medicine: a comprehensive narrative review of key application areas, emerging paradigms, and future directions.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- Generalizability assessment of AI models across hospitals in a low-middle and high income country.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Addressing label noise for electronic health records: insights from computer vision for tabular data.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Mitigating machine learning bias between high income and low-middle income countries for enhanced model fairness and generalizability.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence in the Intensive Care Unit: Current Evidence on an Inevitable Future Tool.Cureus · 2024Review
- The influence of birthweight on mortality and severe neonatal morbidity in late preterm and term infants: an Australian cohort study.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2024Article
- Prevalence of COVID-19 and associated factors among healthcare workers in the war-torn Tigray, Ethiopia.PloS one · 2024Article
- Deep reinforcement learning for multi-class imbalanced training: applications in healthcare.Machine learning · 2024Article
- Experiences of using artificial intelligence in healthcare: a qualitative study of UK clinician and key stakeholder perspectives.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Detection of patients with COVID-19 by the emergency medical services in Lombardy through an operator-based interview and machine learning models.Emergency medicine journal : EMJ · 2023Observational
- COVID-19 screening in low resource settings using artificial intelligence for chest radiographs and point-of-care blood tests.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Automation in Contemporary Clinical Information Systems: a Survey of AI in Healthcare Settings.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2023Article
- Machine Learning in Laboratory Medicine: Recommendations of the IFCC Working Group.Clinical chemistry · 2023Article
- An adversarial training framework for mitigating algorithmic biases in clinical machine learning.NPJ digital medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUncertainty in patients' COVID-19 status contributes to treatment delays, nosocomial transmission, and operational pressures in hospitals. However, the typical turnaround time for laboratory PCR remains 12-24 h and lateral flow devices (LFDs) have limited sensitivity. Previously, we have shown that artificial intelligence-driven triage (CURIAL-1.0) can provide rapid COVID-19 screening using clinical data routinely available within 1 h of arrival to hospital. Here, we aimed to improve the time from arrival to the emergency department to the availability of a result, do external and prospective validation, and deploy a novel laboratory-free screening tool in a UK emergency department.
methodsWe optimised our previous model, removing less informative predictors to improve generalisability and speed, developing the CURIAL-Lab model with vital signs and readily available blood tests (full blood count [FBC]; urea, creatinine, and electrolytes; liver function tests; and C-reactive protein) and the CURIAL-Rapide model with vital signs and FBC alone. Models were validated externally for emergency admissions to University Hospitals Birmingham, Bedfordshire Hospitals, and Portsmouth Hospitals University National Health Service (NHS) trusts, and prospectively at Oxford University Hospitals, by comparison with PCR testing. Next, we compared model performance directly against LFDs and evaluated a combined pathway that triaged patients who had either a positive CURIAL model result or a positive LFD to a COVID-19-suspected clinical area. Lastly, we deployed CURIAL-Rapide alongside an approved point-of-care FBC analyser to provide laboratory-free COVID-19 screening at the John Radcliffe Hospital (Oxford, UK). Our primary improvement outcome was time-to-result, and our performance measures were sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).
findings72 223 patients met eligibility criteria across the four validating hospital groups, in a total validation period spanning Dec 1, 2019, to March 31, 2021. CURIAL-Lab and CURIAL-Rapide performed consistently across trusts (AUROC range 0·858-0·881, 95% CI 0·838-0·912, for CURIAL-Lab and 0·836-0·854, 0·814-0·889, for CURIAL-Rapide), achieving highest sensitivity at Portsmouth Hospitals (84·1%, Wilson's 95% CI 82·5-85·7, for CURIAL-Lab and 83·5%, 81·8-85·1, for CURIAL-Rapide) at specificities of 71·3% (70·9-71·8) for CURIAL-Lab and 63·6% (63·1-64·1) for CURIAL-Rapide. When combined with LFDs, model predictions improved triage sensitivity from 56·9% (51·7-62·0) for LFDs alone to 85·6% with CURIAL-Lab (81·6-88·9; AUROC 0·925) and 88·2% with CURIAL-Rapide (84·4-91·1; AUROC 0·919), thereby reducing missed COVID-19 cases by 65% with CURIAL-Lab and 72% with CURIAL-Rapide. For the prospective deployment of CURIAL-Rapide, 520 patients were enrolled for point-of-care FBC analysis between Feb 18 and May 10, 2021, of whom 436 received confirmatory PCR testing and ten (2·3%) tested positive. Median time from arrival to a CURIAL-Rapide result was 45 min (IQR 32-64), 16 min (26·3%) sooner than with LFDs (61 min, 37-99; log-rank p<0·0001), and 6 h 52 min (90·2%) sooner than with PCR (7 h 37 min, 6 h 5 min to 15 h 39 min; p<0·0001). Classification performance was high, with sensitivity of 87·5% (95% CI 52·9-97·8), specificity of 85·4% (81·3-88·7), and negative predictive value of 99·7% (98·2-99·9). CURIAL-Rapide correctly excluded infection for 31 (58·5%) of 53 patients who were triaged by a physician to a COVID-19-suspected area but went on to test negative by PCR.
interpretationOur findings show the generalisability, performance, and real-world operational benefits of artificial intelligence-driven screening for COVID-19 over standard-of-care in emergency departments. CURIAL-Rapide provided rapid, laboratory-free screening when used with near-patient FBC analysis, and was able to reduce the number of patients who tested negative for COVID-19 but were triaged to COVID-19-suspected areas.
fundingThe Wellcome Trust, University of Oxford Medical and Life Sciences Translational Fund.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.