Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36288359›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Machine learning predicts the short-term requirement for invasive ventilation among Australian critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Roshan Karri, Yi-Ping Phoebe Chen, Aidan J C Burrell, Jahan C Penny-Dimri, Tessa Broadley, Tony Trapani, Adam M Deane, Andrew A Udy, Mark P Plummer, SPRINT-SARI Australia Investigators

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Machine Learning for Benchmarking Critical Care Outcomes.Healthcare informatics research · 2023
    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

10 authors.

Roshan KarriRoyal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9603-5659
Yi-Ping Phoebe ChenFaculty of Science, Technology and Engineering, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Aidan J C BurrellAustralian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre (ANZIC-RC), School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Jahan C Penny-DimriRoyal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Tessa BroadleyAustralian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre (ANZIC-RC), School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Tony TrapaniAustralian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre (ANZIC-RC), School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Adam M DeaneIntensive Care Unit, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7620-5577
Andrew A UdyAustralian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre (ANZIC-RC), School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Mark P PlummerIntensive Care Unit, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
SPRINT-SARI Australia Investigators

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

OBJECTIVE(S): To use machine learning (ML) to predict short-term requirements for invasive ventilation in patients with COVID-19 admitted to Australian intensive care units (ICUs).

designA machine learning study within a national ICU COVID-19 registry in Australia.

participantsAdult patients who were spontaneously breathing and admitted to participating ICUs with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from 20 February 2020 to 7 March 2021. Patients intubated on day one of their ICU admission were excluded.

main outcome measuresSix machine learning models predicted the requirement for invasive ventilation by day three of ICU admission from variables recorded on the first calendar day of ICU admission; (1) random forest classifier (RF), (2) decision tree classifier (DT), (3) logistic regression (LR), (4) K neighbours classifier (KNN), (5) support vector machine (SVM), and (6) gradient boosted machine (GBM). Cross-validation was used to assess the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity of machine learning models.

results300 ICU admissions collected from 53 ICUs across Australia were included. The median [IQR] age of patients was 59 [50-69] years, 109 (36%) were female and 60 (20%) required invasive ventilation on day two or three. Random forest and Gradient boosted machine were the best performing algorithms, achieving mean (SD) AUCs of 0.69 (0.06) and 0.68 (0.07), and mean sensitivities of 77 (19%) and 81 (17%), respectively.

conclusionMachine learning can be used to predict subsequent ventilation in patients with COVID-19 who were spontaneously breathing and admitted to Australian ICUs.

Indexed as

COVID-19Noninvasive VentilationAdultAgedAustraliaCritical IllnessHumansMachine LearningMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID36288359
PMCPMC9604987

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.