ArticleBMC infectious diseases2023
Symptom-based scoring technique by machine learning to predict COVID-19: a validation study.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) surges, such as that which occurred when omicron variants emerged, may overwhelm healthcare systems. To function properly, such systems should balance detection and workloads by improving referrals using simple yet precise and sensitive diagnostic predictions. A symptom-based scoring system was developed using machine learning for the general population, but no validation has occurred in healthcare settings. We aimed to validate a COVID-19 scoring system using self-reported symptoms, including loss of smell and taste as major indicators.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted to evaluate medical records of patients admitted to Dr. Sardjito Hospital, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, from March 2020 to December 2021. Outcomes were defined by a reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). We compared the symptom-based scoring system, as the index test, with antigen tests, antibody tests, and clinical judgements by primary care physicians. To validate use of the index test to improve referral, we evaluated positive predictive value (PPV) and sensitivity.
resultsAfter clinical judgement with a PPV of 61% (n = 327/530, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 60% to 62%), confirmation with the index test resulted in the highest PPV of 85% (n = 30/35, 95% CI: 83% to 87%) but the lowest sensitivity (n = 30/180, 17%, 95% CI: 15% to 19%). If this confirmation was defined by either positive predictive scoring or antigen tests, the PPV was 92% (n = 55/60, 95% CI: 90% to 94%). Meanwhile, the sensitivity was 88% (n = 55/62, 95% CI: 87% to 89%), which was higher than that when using only antigen tests (n = 29/41, 71%, 95% CI: 69% to 73%).
conclusionsThe symptom-based COVID-19 predictive score was validated in healthcare settings for its precision and sensitivity. However, an impact study is needed to confirm if this can balance detection and workload for the next COVID-19 surge.
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.