Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37883177›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2023

A Hybrid Decision Tree and Deep Learning Approach Combining Medical Imaging and Electronic Medical Records to Predict Intubation Among Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: Algorithm Development and Validation.

Kim-Anh-Nhi Nguyen, Pranai Tandon, Sahar Ghanavati, Satya Narayana Cheetirala, Prem Timsina, Robert Freeman, David Reich, Matthew A Levin, Madhu Mazumdar, Zahi A Fayad and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. 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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kim-Anh-Nhi NguyenInstitute for Healthcare Delivery Science, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3446-9750
Pranai TandonDepartment of Medicine Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5101-7310
Sahar GhanavatiInstitute for Healthcare Delivery Science, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-6820-3602
Satya Narayana CheetiralaInstitute for Healthcare Delivery Science, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-5666-5593
Prem TimsinaInstitute for Healthcare Delivery Science, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6047-887X
Robert FreemanInstitute for Healthcare Delivery Science, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4946-6533
David ReichHospital Administration, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0095-515X
Matthew A LevinDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6013-2684
Madhu MazumdarInstitute for Healthcare Delivery Science, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3965-5146
Zahi A FayadBioMedical Engineering and Imaging Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3439-7347
Arash KiaInstitute for Healthcare Delivery Science, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4699-7892
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · USMount Sinai Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEarly prediction of the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 symptoms can help in the allocation of resources appropriately and improve patient outcomes by appropriately monitoring and treating patients at the greatest risk of respiratory failure. To help with the complexity of deciding whether a patient needs IMV, machine learning algorithms may help bring more prognostic value in a timely and systematic manner. Chest radiographs (CXRs) and electronic medical records (EMRs), typically obtained early in patients admitted with COVID-19, are the keys to deciding whether they need IMV.

objectiveWe aimed to evaluate the use of a machine learning model to predict the need for intubation within 24 hours by using a combination of CXR and EMR data in an end-to-end automated pipeline. We included historical data from 2481 hospitalizations at The Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City.

methodsCXRs were first resized, rescaled, and normalized. Then lungs were segmented from the CXRs by using a U-Net algorithm. After splitting them into a training and a test set, the training set images were augmented. The augmented images were used to train an image classifier to predict the probability of intubation with a prediction window of 24 hours by retraining a pretrained DenseNet model by using transfer learning, 10-fold cross-validation, and grid search. Then, in the final fusion model, we trained a random forest algorithm via 10-fold cross-validation by combining the probability score from the image classifier with 41 longitudinal variables in the EMR. Variables in the EMR included clinical and laboratory data routinely collected in the inpatient setting. The final fusion model gave a prediction likelihood for the need of intubation within 24 hours as well.

resultsAt a prediction probability threshold of 0.5, the fusion model provided 78.9% (95% CI 59%-96%) sensitivity, 83% (95% CI 76%-89%) specificity, 0.509 (95% CI 0.34-0.67) F

conclusionsWe show that, when linked with EMR data, an automated deep learning image classifier improved performance in identifying hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 at risk for intubation. With additional prospective and external validation, such a model may assist risk assessment and optimize clinical decision-making in choosing the best care plan during the critical stages of COVID-19.

Indexed as

chest radiographclinical informaticsCOVID-19decision treeselectronic health recordshybrid modelintubationmachine learningmechanical ventilationmedical imaging

Identifiers

PMID37883177
PMCPMC10636624
OpenAlexW4387949862

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.