ArticleDigital health
Artificial intelligence for predicting mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The global demographic situation has been significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of this study was to develop a model that predicts the risk of COVID-associated mortality using clinical and laboratory data collected within 72 h of hospital admission. Materials and methods: A total of 3024 subjects with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 were admitted to Almazov National Research Medical Center between May 2020 and August 2021. Among them, 6.25% ( Results: All methods demonstrated high efficacy, with ROC AUC (Receiver Operating Characteristic Area Under the Curve) values exceeding 80%. The selected Boruta-SHAP features, when incorporated into the random forest model, achieved an ROC AUC of 93.1% in the validation. Conclusion: Throughout the study, close collaboration with healthcare professionals ensured that the developed tool met their practical needs. The success of our model validates the potential of machine learning techniques as decision support systems in clinical practice.
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.