Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35493729›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2022

A Comparison of XGBoost, Random Forest, and Nomograph for the Prediction of Disease Severity in Patients With COVID-19 Pneumonia: Implications of Cytokine and Immune Cell Profile.

Wandong Hong, Xiaoying Zhou, Shengchun Jin, Yajing Lu, Jingyi Pan, Qingyi Lin, Shaopeng Yang, Tingting Xu, Zarrin Basharat, Maddalena Zippi and 6 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

16 authors.

Wandong HongDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
Xiaoying ZhouSchool of the First Clinical Medical Sciences, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
Shengchun JinSchool of the First Clinical Medical Sciences, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
Yajing LuSchool of the First Clinical Medical Sciences, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
Jingyi PanSchool of the First Clinical Medical Sciences, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
Qingyi LinSchool of the First Clinical Medical Sciences, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
Shaopeng YangSchool of the First Clinical Medical Sciences, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
Tingting XuSchool of the First Clinical Medical Sciences, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
Zarrin BasharatJamil-ur-Rahman Center for Genome Research, Dr. Panjwani Centre for Molecular Medicine and Drug Research, International Center for Chemical and Biological Sciences, University of Karachi, Karachi, Pakistan.
Maddalena ZippiUnit of Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy, Sandro Pertini Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Sirio FiorinoInternal Medicine Unit, Budrio Hospital, Bologna, Italy.
Vladislav TsukanovDepartment of Gastroenterology, Scientific Research Institute of Medical Problems of the North, Krasnoyarsk, Russia.
Simon StockDepartment of Surgery, World Mate Emergency Hospital, Battambang, Cambodia.
Alfonso GrottesiUnit of General Surgery, Sandro Pertini Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Qin ChenDepartment of Intensive Care Unit, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
Jingye PanDepartment of Intensive Care Unit, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Aims: The aim of this study was to apply machine learning models and a nomogram to differentiate critically ill from non-critically ill COVID-19 pneumonia patients. Methods: Clinical symptoms and signs, laboratory parameters, cytokine profile, and immune cellular data of 63 COVID-19 pneumonia patients were retrospectively reviewed. Outcomes were followed up until Mar 12, 2020. A logistic regression function (LR model), Random Forest, and XGBoost models were developed. The performance of these models was measured by area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis. Results: Univariate analysis revealed that there was a difference between critically and non-critically ill patients with respect to levels of interleukin-6, interleukin-10, T cells, CD4 Conclusions: XGBoost exhibited the highest discriminatory performance for prediction of critically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. It is inferred that the nomogram and visualized interpretation with LIME plot could be useful in the clinical setting. Additionally, interleukin-10 could serve as a useful predictor of critically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

Indexed as

COVID-19Interleukin-10CD8-Positive T-LymphocytesCritical IllnessCytokinesHumansInterleukin-6NomogramsPatient AcuityRetrospective StudiesSeverity of Illness IndexCytokinesInterleukin-10Interleukin-6COVID-19critically illinfectionmachine learningpneumoniapredictorseverity

Identifiers

PMID35493729
PMCPMC9039730

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.