ArticleHealth science reports2024
Application of boosted trees to the prognosis prediction of COVID-19.
Article in Health science reports, 2024. 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.
- Comparison of machine learning and nomogram to predict 30-day in-hospital mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction combined with cardiogenic shock: a retrospective study based on the eICU-CRD and MIMIC-IV databases.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
- Application of boosted trees to the prognosis prediction of COVID-19.Health science reports · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: The precise prediction of COVID-19 prognosis remains a clinical challenge. In this regard, early identification of severe cases facilitates the triage and management of COVID-19 cases. The present paper aims to explore the prognosis of COVID-19 patients based on routine laboratory tests taken when patients are admitted. Methods: A data set including 1455 COVID-19 patients (727 male, 728 female) and their routine laboratory tests conducted upon hospital admission, age, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission, and outcome were gathered. The data set was randomly split into the train (75% of the data) and test data set (25% of the data). The explainable boosting machine (EBM) and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) were used for predicting the mortality and ICU admission of COVID-19 cases. Also, feature importance was extracted using EBM and XGBoost. Results: The EBM and XGBoost achieved 86.38% and 88.56% accuracy in the test data set, respectively. In addition, EBM and XGBoost predicted the ICU admission with an accuracy of 89.37%, and 79.29% in the test data set for COVID-19 patients, respectively. Also, obtained models indicated that aspartate transaminase (AST), lymphocyte, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), and age are the most significant predictors of COVID-19 mortality. Furthermore, the lymphocyte count, AST, and BUN level were the most significant ICU admission predictors of COVID-19 patients. Conclusions: The current study indicated that both EBM and XGBoost could predict the ICU admission and mortality of COVID-19 cases based on routine hematological and clinical chemistry evaluation at the time of admission. Also, based on the results, AST, lymphocyte count, and BUN levels could be used as early predictors of COVID-19 prognosis.
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.