Observational studyJournal of medical Internet research2025
AI Predictive Model of Mortality and Intensive Care Unit Admission in the COVID-19 Pandemic: Retrospective Population Cohort Study of 12,000 Patients.
Observational study in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evidence-Guided Multimodal Risk Prediction Framework for Severe COVID-19 Outcomes Using EHR and CT Imaging for COVID-19 Clinical Decision Support.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Review
- Authors' Reply to: Significant Risks and Responsibilities in the Clinical Use of AI Predictive Models. Comment on: "AI Predictive Model of Mortality and Intensive Care Unit Admission in the COVID-19 Pandemic: Retrospective Population Cohort Study of 12,000 Patients".Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Significant Risks and Responsibilities in the Clinical Use of AI Predictive Models. Comment on: "AI Predictive Model of Mortality and Intensive Care Unit Admission in the COVID-19 Pandemic: Retrospective Population Cohort Study of 12,000 Patients".Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
46 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOne of the main challenges with COVID-19 has been that although there are known factors associated with a worse prognosis, clinicians have been unable to predict which patients, with similar risk factors, will die or require intensive care unit (ICU) care.
objectiveThis study aimed to develop a personalized artificial intelligence model to predict the patient risk of mortality and ICU admission related to SARS-CoV-2 infection during the initial medical evaluation before any kind of treatment.
methodsIt is a population-based, observational, retrospective study covering from February 1, 2020, to January 24, 2023, with different circulating SARS-CoV-2 viruses, vaccinated status, and reinfections. It includes patients attended by the reference hospital in Fuenlabrada (Madrid, Spain). The models used the random forest technique, Shapley Additive Explanations method, and processing with Python (version 3.10.0; Python Software Foundation) and scikit-learn (version 1.3.0). The models were applied to different epidemic SARS-CoV-2 infection waves. Data were collected from 11,975 patients (4998 hospitalized and 6737 discharged). Predictive models were built with records from 4758 patients and validated with 6977 patients after evaluation in the emergency department. Variables recorded were age, sex, place of birth, clinical data, laboratory results, vaccination status, and radiologic data at admission.
resultsThe best mortality predictor achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.92, sensitivity of 0.89, specificity of 0.82, positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.35, and mean negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.98. The ICU admission predictor had an AUC of 0.89, sensitivity of 0.75, specificity of 0.88, PPV of 0.37, and NPV of 0.98. During validation, the mortality model exhibited good performance for the nonhospitalized group, achieving an AUC of 0.95, sensitivity of 0.88, specificity of 0.98, PPV of 0.21, and NPV of 0.99, predicting the death of 30 of 34 patients who were not hospitalized. For the hospitalized patients, the mortality model achieved an AUC of 0.85, sensitivity of 0.86, specificity of 0.74, PPV of 0.24, and NPV of 0.98. The model for predicting ICU admission had an AUC of 0.82, sensitivity of 1.00, specificity of 0.59, PPV of 0.05, and NPV of 1.00. The models' metrics presented stability along all pandemic waves. Key mortality predictors included age, Charlson value, and tachypnea. The worse prognosis was linked to high values in urea, erythrocyte distribution width, oxygen demand, creatinine, procalcitonin, lactate dehydrogenase, heart failure, D-dimer, oncological and hematological diseases, neutrophil, and heart rate. A better prognosis was linked to higher values of lymphocytes and systolic and diastolic blood pressures. Partial or no vaccination provided less protection than full vaccination.
conclusionsThe artificial intelligence models demonstrated stability across pandemic waves, indicating their potential to assist in personal health services during the 3-year pandemic, particularly in early preventive and predictive clinical situations.
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.