Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36812571›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2022

COVID-19 machine learning model predicts outcomes in older patients from various European countries, between pandemic waves, and in a cohort of Asian, African, and American patients.

Behrooz Mamandipoor, Raphael Romano Bruno, Bernhard Wernly, Georg Wolff, Jesper Fjølner, Antonio Artigas, Bernardo Bollen Pinto, Joerg C Schefold, Malte Kelm, Michael Beil and 8 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS 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 NCT04321265 (Outcomes and Prognostic Factors in Coronavirus Disease), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT04321265 unknown statusnot on this map

Outcomes and Prognostic Factors in Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) in Very Old Intensive Care Patients

TypeobservationalSponsorHeinrich-Heine University, DuesseldorfRan2020 to 2023Enrolled1,500ConditionsCOVID-19, Elderly Patients, Critical Illness, Survival
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

18 authors.

Behrooz MamandipoorDigital Health Centre, Fondazione Bruno Kessler Research Institute, Trento, Italy.
Raphael Romano BrunoHeinrich-Heine-University Duesseldorf, Medical Faculty, Department of Cardiology, Pulmonology and Vascular Medicine, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Bernhard WernlyDepartment of Internal Medicine, General Hospital Oberndorf, Teaching Hospital of the Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, 5020 Salzburg, Austria.
Georg WolffHeinrich-Heine-University Duesseldorf, Medical Faculty, Department of Cardiology, Pulmonology and Vascular Medicine, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Jesper FjølnerDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Viborg Regional Hospital, Viborg, Denmark.
Antonio ArtigasDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, CIBER Enfermedades Respiratorias, Corporacion Sanitaria Universitaria Parc Tauli, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Sabadell, Spain.
Bernardo Bollen PintoDepartment of Acute Medicine, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Joerg C SchefoldDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Inselspital, Universitätsspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Malte KelmHeinrich-Heine-University Duesseldorf, Medical Faculty, Department of Cardiology, Pulmonology and Vascular Medicine, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Michael BeilDept. of Medical Intensive Care, Hadassah Medical Center and Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel.
Sviri SigalDept. of Medical Intensive Care, Hadassah Medical Center and Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel.
Susannah LeaverGeneral Intensive care, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation trust, London, United Kingdom.
Dylan W De LangeDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center, University Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Bertrand GuidetSorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, INSERM, UMR_S 1136, Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, Equipe: épidémiologie hospitalière qualité et organisation des soins, F-75012, Paris, France.
Hans FlaattenDepartment of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Wojciech SzczeklikJagiellonian University Medical College, Center for Intensive Care and Perioperative Medicine, Krakow, Poland.
Christian JungHeinrich-Heine-University Duesseldorf, Medical Faculty, Department of Cardiology, Pulmonology and Vascular Medicine, Duesseldorf, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8325-250X
Venet OsmaniDigital Health Centre, Fondazione Bruno Kessler Research Institute, Trento, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7306-2972

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCOVID-19 remains a complex disease in terms of its trajectory and the diversity of outcomes rendering disease management and clinical resource allocation challenging. Varying symptomatology in older patients as well as limitation of clinical scoring systems have created the need for more objective and consistent methods to aid clinical decision making. In this regard, machine learning methods have been shown to enhance prognostication, while improving consistency. However, current machine learning approaches have been limited by lack of generalisation to diverse patient populations, between patients admitted at different waves and small sample sizes.

objectivesWe sought to investigate whether machine learning models, derived on routinely collected clinical data, can generalise well i) between European countries, ii) between European patients admitted at different COVID-19 waves, and iii) between geographically diverse patients, namely whether a model derived on the European patient cohort can be used to predict outcomes of patients admitted to Asian, African and American ICUs.

methodsWe compare Logistic Regression, Feed Forward Neural Network and XGBoost algorithms to analyse data from 3,933 older patients with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis in predicting three outcomes, namely: ICU mortality, 30-day mortality and patients at low risk of deterioration. The patients were admitted to ICUs located in 37 countries, between January 11, 2020, and April 27, 2021.

resultsThe XGBoost model derived on the European cohort and externally validated in cohorts of Asian, African, and American patients, achieved AUC of 0.89 (95% CI 0.89-0.89) in predicting ICU mortality, AUC of 0.86 (95% CI 0.86-0.86) for 30-day mortality prediction and AUC of 0.86 (95% CI 0.86-0.86) in predicting low-risk patients. Similar AUC performance was achieved also when predicting outcomes between European countries and between pandemic waves, while the models showed high calibration quality. Furthermore, saliency analysis showed that FiO2 values of up to 40% do not appear to increase the predicted risk of ICU and 30-day mortality, while PaO2 values of 75 mmHg or lower are associated with a sharp increase in the predicted risk of ICU and 30-day mortality. Lastly, increase in SOFA scores also increase the predicted risk, but only up to a value of 8. Beyond these scores the predicted risk remains consistently high.

conclusionThe models captured both the dynamic course of the disease as well as similarities and differences between the diverse patient cohorts, enabling prediction of disease severity, identification of low-risk patients and potentially supporting effective planning of essential clinical resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04321265.

Identifiers

PMID36812571
PMCPMC9931233

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.