Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40133706›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2025

Deep neural networks excel in COVID-19 disease severity prediction-a meta-regression analysis.

Márton Rakovics, Fanni Adél Meznerics, Péter Fehérvári, Tamás Kói, Dezső Csupor, András Bánvölgyi, Gabriella Anna Rapszky, Marie Anne Engh, Péter Hegyi, Andrea Harnos

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

10 authors.

Márton RakovicsCentre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary. marton.rakovics@tatk.elte.hu.
Fanni Adél MeznericsCentre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Péter FehérváriCentre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Tamás KóiCentre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Dezső CsuporCentre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
András BánvölgyiCentre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Gabriella Anna RapszkyCentre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Marie Anne EnghCentre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Péter HegyiCentre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Andrea HarnosCentre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

COVID-19 is a disease in which early prognosis of severity is critical for desired patient outcomes and for the management of limited resources like intensive care unit beds and ventilation equipment. Many prognostic statistical tools have been developed for the prediction of disease severity, but it is still unclear which ones should be used in practice. We aim to guide clinicians in choosing the best available tools to make optimal decisions and assess their role in resource management and assess what can be learned from the COVID-19 scenario for development of prediction models in similar medical applications. Using the five major medical databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and Scopus, we conducted a comprehensive systematic review of prediction tools between 2020 January and 2023 April for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We identified both the relevant confounding factors of tool performance using the MetaForest algorithm and the best tools-comparing linear, machine learning, and deep learning methods-with mixed-effects meta-regression models. The risk of bias was evaluated using the PROBAST tool. Our systematic search identified eligible 27,312 studies, out of which 290 were eligible for data extraction, reporting on 430 independent evaluations of severity prediction tools with ~ 2.8 million patients. Neural Network-based tools have the highest performance with a pooled AUC of 0.893 (0.748-1.000), 0.752 (0.614-0.853) sensitivity, 0.914 (0.849-0.952) specificity, using clinical, laboratory, and imaging data. The relevant confounders of performance are the geographic region of patients, the rate of severe cases, and the use of C-Reactive Protein as input data. 88% of studies have a high risk of bias, mostly because of deficiencies in the data analysis. All investigated tools in use aid decision-making for COVID-19 severity prediction, but Machine Learning tools, specifically Neural Networks clearly outperform other methods, especially in cases when the basic characteristics of severe and non-severe patient groups are similar, and without the need for more data. When highly specific biomarkers are not available-such as in the case of COVID-19-practitioners should abandon general clinical severity scores and turn to disease specific Machine Learning tools.

Indexed as

COVID-19Deep LearningNeural Networks, ComputerHumansMachine LearningPrognosisRegression AnalysisSARS-CoV-2Severity of Illness IndexArtificial intelligenceCOVID-19Deep learningMachine learningSeverity prediction

Identifiers

PMID40133706
PMCPMC11937321

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.