Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add filters

Database
Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak ; 21(1): 224, 2021 07 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1322935

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Many models are published which predict outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The generalizability of many is unknown. We evaluated the performance of selected models from the literature and our own models to predict outcomes in patients at our institution. METHODS: We searched the literature for models predicting outcomes in inpatients with COVID-19. We produced models of mortality or criticality (mortality or ICU admission) in a development cohort. We tested external models which provided sufficient information and our models using a test cohort of our most recent patients. The performance of models was compared using the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC). RESULTS: Our literature review yielded 41 papers. Of those, 8 were found to have sufficient documentation and concordance with features available in our cohort to implement in our test cohort. All models were from Chinese patients. One model predicted criticality and seven mortality. Tested against the test cohort, internal models had an AUC of 0.84 (0.74-0.94) for mortality and 0.83 (0.76-0.90) for criticality. The best external model had an AUC of 0.89 (0.82-0.96) using three variables, another an AUC of 0.84 (0.78-0.91) using ten variables. AUC's ranged from 0.68 to 0.89. On average, models tested were unable to produce predictions in 27% of patients due to missing lab data. CONCLUSION: Despite differences in pandemic timeline, race, and socio-cultural healthcare context some models derived in China performed well. For healthcare organizations considering implementation of an external model, concordance between the features used in the model and features available in their own patients may be important. Analysis of both local and external models should be done to help decide on what prediction method is used to provide clinical decision support to clinicians treating COVID-19 patients as well as what lab tests should be included in order sets.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , China , Hospitalization , Humans , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
2.
Acad Radiol ; 28(8): 1151-1158, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1240127

ABSTRACT

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The clinical prognosis of outpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains difficult to predict, with outcomes including asymptomatic, hospitalization, intubation, and death. Here we determined the prognostic value of an outpatient chest radiograph, together with an ensemble of deep learning algorithms predicting comorbidities and airspace disease to identify patients at a higher risk of hospitalization from COVID-19 infection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included outpatients with COVID-19 confirmed by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction testing who received an ambulatory chest radiography between March 17, 2020 and October 24, 2020. In this study, full admission was defined as hospitalization within 14 days of the COVID-19 test for > 2 days with supplemental oxygen. Univariate analysis and machine learning algorithms were used to evaluate the relationship between the deep learning model predictions and hospitalization for > 2 days. RESULTS: The study included 413 patients, 222 men (54%), with a median age of 51 years (interquartile range, 39-62 years). Fifty-one patients (12.3%) required full admission. A boosted decision tree model produced the best prediction. Variables included patient age, frontal chest radiograph predictions of morbid obesity, congestive heart failure and cardiac arrhythmias, and radiographic opacity, with an internally validated area under the curve (AUC) of 0.837 (95% CI: 0.791-0.883) on a test cohort. CONCLUSION: Deep learning analysis of single frontal chest radiographs was used to generate combined comorbidity and pneumonia scores that predict the need for supplemental oxygen and hospitalization for > 2 days in patients with COVID-19 infection with an AUC of 0.837 (95% confidence interval: 0.791-0.883). Comorbidity scoring may prove useful in other clinical scenarios.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Deep Learning , Oxygen/therapeutic use , Adult , COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Radiography, Thoracic , Retrospective Studies
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL