Observational studyEmergency medicine journal : EMJ2023
Detection of patients with COVID-19 by the emergency medical services in Lombardy through an operator-based interview and machine learning models.
Observational study in Emergency medicine journal : EMJ, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of artificial intelligence in the out-of-hospital care settings: a scoping review.BMJ digital health & AI · 2026Article
- Reshaping Emergency Care: Dynamics of OHCA and STEMI in a Three-Year Analysis.Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe regional emergency medical service (EMS) in Lombardy (Italy) developed clinical algorithms based on operator-based interviews to detect patients with COVID-19 and refer them to the most appropriate hospitals. Machine learning (ML)-based models using additional clinical and geospatial epidemiological data may improve the identification of infected patients and guide EMS in detecting COVID-19 cases before confirmation with SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase PCR (rtPCR).
methodsThis was an observational, retrospective cohort study using data from October 2020 to July 2021 (training set) and October 2021 to December 2021 (validation set) from patients who underwent a SARS-CoV-2 rtPCR test within 7 days of an EMS call. The performance of an operator-based interview using close contact history and signs/symptoms of COVID-19 was assessed in the training set for its ability to determine which patients had an rtPCR in the 7 days before or after the call. The interview accuracy was compared with four supervised ML models to predict positivity for SARS-CoV-2 within 7 days using readily available prehospital data retrieved from both training and validation sets.
resultsThe training set includes 264 976 patients, median age 74 (IQR 55-84). Test characteristics for the detection of COVID-19-positive patients of the operator-based interview were: sensitivity 85.5%, specificity 58.7%, positive predictive value (PPV) 37.5% and negative predictive value (NPV) 93.3%. Contact history, fever and cough showed the highest association with SARS-CoV-2 infection. In the validation set (103 336 patients, median age 73 (IQR 50-84)), the best-performing ML model had an AUC of 0.85 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.86), sensitivity 91.4% (95 CI% 0.91 to 0.92), specificity 44.2% (95% CI 0.44 to 0.45) and accuracy 85% (95% CI 0.84 to 0.85). PPV and NPV were 13.3% (95% CI 0.13 to 0.14) and 98.2% (95% CI 0.98 to 0.98), respectively. Contact history, fever, call geographical distribution and cough were the most important variables in determining the outcome.
conclusionML-based models might help EMS identify patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, and in guiding EMS allocation of hospital resources based on prespecified criteria.
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.