ArticlePloS one2024
Predicting invasive mechanical ventilation in COVID 19 patients: A validation study.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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, 0 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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe decision to intubate and ventilate a patient is mainly clinical. Both delaying intubation (when needed) and unnecessarily invasively ventilating (when it can be avoided) are harmful. We recently developed an algorithm predicting respiratory failure and invasive mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 patients. This is an internal validation study of this model, which also suggests a categorized "time-weighted" model.
methodsWe used a dataset of COVID-19 patients who were admitted to Rabin Medical Center after the algorithm was developed. We evaluated model performance in predicting ventilation, regarding the actual endpoint of each patient. We further categorized each patient into one of four categories, based on the strength of the prediction of ventilation over time. We evaluated this categorized model performance regarding the actual endpoint of each patient.
results881 patients were included in the study; 96 of them were ventilated. AUC of the original algorithm is 0.87-0.94. The AUC of the categorized model is 0.95.
conclusionsA minor degradation in the algorithm accuracy was noted in the internal validation, however, its accuracy remained high. The categorized model allows accurate prediction over time, with very high negative predictive value.
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.