ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Deep-Risk: Deep Learning-Based Mortality Risk Predictive Models for COVID-19.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting COVID-19 Mortality Risk Among Cardiovascular Disease Patients Using Artificial Intelligence Algorithms: A Retrospective Study on Clinical Data.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Hybrid feature selection with novel deep learning model for COVID-19 risk prediction.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- CovC-ReDRNet: A Deep Learning Model for COVID-19 Classification.Machine learning and knowledge extraction · 2023Article
- Developing an Artificial Intelligence-Based Representation of a Virtual Patient Model for Real-Time Diagnosis of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Analysis of Chest X-ray for COVID-19 Diagnosis as a Use Case for an HPC-Enabled Data Analysis and Machine Learning Platform for Medical Diagnosis Support.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The SARS-CoV-2 virus has proliferated around the world and caused panic to all people as it claimed many lives. Since COVID-19 is highly contagious and spreads quickly, an early diagnosis is essential. Identifying the COVID-19 patients' mortality risk factors is essential for reducing this risk among infected individuals. For the timely examination of large datasets, new computing approaches must be created. Many machine learning (ML) techniques have been developed to predict the mortality risk factors and severity for COVID-19 patients. Contrary to expectations, deep learning approaches as well as ML algorithms have not been widely applied in predicting the mortality and severity from COVID-19. Furthermore, the accuracy achieved by ML algorithms is less than the anticipated values. In this work, three supervised deep learning predictive models are utilized to predict the mortality risk and severity for COVID-19 patients. The first one, which we refer to as CV-CNN, is built using a convolutional neural network (CNN); it is trained using a clinical dataset of 12,020 patients and is based on the 10-fold cross-validation (CV) approach for training and validation. The second predictive model, which we refer to as CV-LSTM + CNN, is developed by combining the long short-term memory (LSTM) approach with a CNN model. It is also trained using the clinical dataset based on the 10-fold CV approach for training and validation. The first two predictive models use the clinical dataset in its original CSV form. The last one, which we refer to as IMG-CNN, is a CNN model and is trained alternatively using the converted images of the clinical dataset, where each image corresponds to a data row from the original clinical dataset. The experimental results revealed that the IMG-CNN predictive model outperforms the other two with an average accuracy of 94.14%, a precision of 100%, a recall of 91.0%, a specificity of 100%, an F1-score of 95.3%, an AUC of 93.6%, and a loss of 0.22.
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.