Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38881861›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2024

Use of machine learning to identify protective factors for death from COVID-19 in the ICU: a retrospective study.

Lander Dos Santos, Lincoln Luis Silva, Fernando Castilho Pelloso, Vinicius Maia, Constanza Pujals, Deise Helena Borghesan, Maria Dalva Carvalho, Raíssa Bocchi Pedroso, Sandra Marisa Pelloso

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Lander Dos SantosState University of Maringá, Graduate Program in Health Sciences, Maringá, Paraná, Brazil.
Lincoln Luis SilvaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, United States of America.
Fernando Castilho PellosoDepartment of Medicine, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil.
Vinicius MaiaUnicesumar, Maringá, Paraná, Brazil.
Constanza PujalsState University of Maringá, Graduate Program in Health Sciences, Maringá, Paraná, Brazil.
Deise Helena BorghesanUnion of Catholic Colleges of Mato Grosso, Cuiabá, Mato Grosso, Brazil.
Maria Dalva CarvalhoState University of Maringá, Graduate Program in Health Sciences, Maringá, Paraná, Brazil.
Raíssa Bocchi PedrosoState University of Maringá, Graduate Program in Health Sciences, Maringá, Paraná, Brazil.
Sandra Marisa PellosoState University of Maringá, Graduate Program in Health Sciences, Maringá, Paraná, Brazil.

Funding

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior–Brasil (CAPES)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Patients in serious condition due to COVID-19 often require special care in intensive care units (ICUs). This disease has affected over 758 million people and resulted in 6.8 million deaths worldwide. Additionally, the progression of the disease may vary from individual to individual, that is, it is essential to identify the clinical parameters that indicate a good prognosis for the patient. Machine learning (ML) algorithms have been used for analyzing complex medical data and identifying prognostic indicators. However, there is still an urgent need for a model to elucidate the predictors related to patient outcomes. Therefore, this research aimed to verify, through ML, the variables involved in the discharge of patients admitted to the ICU due to COVID-19. Methods: In this study, 126 variables were collected with information on demography, hospital length stay and outcome, chronic diseases and tumors, comorbidities and risk factors, complications and adverse events, health care, and vital indicators of patients admitted to an ICU in southern Brazil. These variables were filtered and then selected by a ML algorithm known as decision trees to identify the optimal set of variables for predicting patient discharge using logistic regression. Finally, a confusion matrix was performed to evaluate the model's performance for the selected variables. Results: Of the 532 patients evaluated, 180 were discharged: female (16.92%), with a central venous catheter (23.68%), with a bladder catheter (26.13%), and with an average of 8.46- and 23.65-days using bladder catheter and submitted to mechanical ventilation, respectively. In addition, the chances of discharge increase by 14% for each additional day in the hospital, by 136% for female patients, 716% when there is no bladder catheter, and 737% when no central venous catheter is used. However, the chances of discharge decrease by 3% for each additional year of age and by 9% for each other day of mechanical ventilation. The performance of the training data presented a balanced accuracy of 0.81, sensitivity of 0.74, specificity of 0.88, and the kappa value was 0.64. The test performance had a balanced accuracy of 0.85, sensitivity 0.75, specificity 0.95, and kappa value of 0.73. The McNemar test found that there were no significant differences in the error rates in the training and test data, suggesting good classification. This work showed that female, the absence of a central venous catheter and bladder catheter, shorter mechanical ventilation, and bladder catheter duration were associated with a greater chance of hospital discharge. These results may help develop measures that lead to a good prognosis for the patient.

Indexed as

COVID-19Intensive Care UnitsMachine LearningSARS-CoV-2AdultAgedBrazilFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedPatient DischargePrognosisProtective FactorsRetrospective StudiesCOVID-19Critical careEpidemiologyIntensive care unityMachine learning

Identifiers

PMID38881861
PMCPMC11179634

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.