ArticleFrontiers in immunology2024
Development of a COVID-19 early risk assessment system based on multiple machine learning algorithms and routine blood tests: a real-world study.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2024. 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.
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
Backgrounds: During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic, the massive spread of the disease has placed an enormous burden on the world's healthcare and economy. The early risk assessment system based on a variety of machine learning (ML) algorithms may be able to provide more accurate advice on the classification of COVID-19 patients, offering predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine (PPPM) solutions in the future. Methods: In this retrospective study, we divided a portion of the data into training and validation cohorts in a 7:3 ratio and established a model based on a combination of two ML algorithms first. Then, we used another portion of the data as an independent testing cohort to determine the most accurate and stable model and compared it with other scoring systems. Finally, patients were categorized according to risk scores and then the correlation between their clinical data and risk scores was studied. Results: The elderly accounted for the majority of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The C-index of the model constructed by combining the stepcox[both] and survivalSVM algorithms was 0.840 in the training cohort and 0.815 in the validation cohort, which was calculated to have the highest C-index in the testing cohort compared to the other 119 ML model combinations. Compared with current scoring systems, including the CURB-65 and several reported prognosis models previously, our model had the highest AUC value of 0.778, representing an even higher predictive performance. In addition, the model's AUC values for specific time intervals, including days 7,14 and 28, demonstrate excellent predictive performance. Most importantly, we stratified patients according to the model's risk score and demonstrated a difference in survival status between the high-risk, median-risk, and low-risk groups, which means a new and stable risk assessment system was built. Finally, we found that COVID-19 patients with a history of cerebral infarction had a significantly higher risk of death. Conclusion: This novel risk assessment system is highly accurate in predicting the prognosis of patients with COVID-19, especially elderly patients with COVID-19, and can be well applied within the PPPM framework. Our ML model facilitates stratified patient management, meanwhile promoting the optimal use of healthcare resources.
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.