ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2023
Prediction models for respiratory outcomes in patients with COVID-19: integration of quantitative computed tomography parameters, demographics, and laboratory features.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Oscillometry Longitudinal Data on COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Syndrome Treated with Non-Invasive Respiratory Support.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Quantitative Analysis for Lung Disease on Thin-Section CT.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Quantitative evaluation of CT scan images to determinate the prognosis of COVID-19 patient using deep learning.European journal of translational myology · 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
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: We aimed to develop integrative machine-learning models using quantitative computed tomography (CT) parameters in addition to initial clinical features to predict the respiratory outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: This was a retrospective study involving 387 patients with COVID-19. Demographic, initial laboratory, and quantitative CT findings were used to develop predictive models of respiratory outcomes. High-attenuation area (HAA) (%) and consolidation (%) were defined as quantified percentages of the area with Hounsfield units between -600 and -250 and between -100 and 0, respectively. Respiratory outcomes were defined as the development of pneumonia, hypoxia, or respiratory failure. Multivariable logistic regression and random forest models were developed for each respiratory outcome. The performance of the logistic regression model was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The accuracy of the developed models was validated by 10-fold cross-validation. Results: A total of 195 (50.4%), 85 (22.0%), and 19 (4.9%) patients developed pneumonia, hypoxia, and respiratory failure, respectively. The mean patient age was 57.8 years, and 194 (50.1%) were female. In the multivariable analysis, vaccination status and levels of lactate dehydrogenase, C-reactive protein (CRP), and fibrinogen were independent predictors of pneumonia. The presence of hypertension, levels of lactate dehydrogenase and CRP, HAA (%), and consolidation (%) were selected as independent variables to predict hypoxia. For respiratory failure, the presence of diabetes, levels of aspartate aminotransferase, and CRP, and HAA (%) were selected. The AUCs of the prediction models for pneumonia, hypoxia, and respiratory failure were 0.904, 0.890, and 0.969, respectively. Using the feature selection in the random forest model, HAA (%) was ranked as one of the top 10 features predicting pneumonia and hypoxia and was first place for respiratory failure. The accuracies of the cross-validation of the random forest models using the top 10 features for pneumonia, hypoxia, and respiratory failure were 0.872, 0.878, and 0.945, respectively. Conclusions: Our prediction models that incorporated quantitative CT parameters into clinical and laboratory variables showed good performance with high accuracy.
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.