Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 9 de 9
Filter
4.
Eur Radiol ; 32(4): 2235-2245, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1606144

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Main challenges for COVID-19 include the lack of a rapid diagnostic test, a suitable tool to monitor and predict a patient's clinical course and an efficient way for data sharing among multicenters. We thus developed a novel artificial intelligence system based on deep learning (DL) and federated learning (FL) for the diagnosis, monitoring, and prediction of a patient's clinical course. METHODS: CT imaging derived from 6 different multicenter cohorts were used for stepwise diagnostic algorithm to diagnose COVID-19, with or without clinical data. Patients with more than 3 consecutive CT images were trained for the monitoring algorithm. FL has been applied for decentralized refinement of independently built DL models. RESULTS: A total of 1,552,988 CT slices from 4804 patients were used. The model can diagnose COVID-19 based on CT alone with the AUC being 0.98 (95% CI 0.97-0.99), and outperforms the radiologist's assessment. We have also successfully tested the incorporation of the DL diagnostic model with the FL framework. Its auto-segmentation analyses co-related well with those by radiologists and achieved a high Dice's coefficient of 0.77. It can produce a predictive curve of a patient's clinical course if serial CT assessments are available. INTERPRETATION: The system has high consistency in diagnosing COVID-19 based on CT, with or without clinical data. Alternatively, it can be implemented on a FL platform, which would potentially encourage the data sharing in the future. It also can produce an objective predictive curve of a patient's clinical course for visualization. KEY POINTS: • CoviDet could diagnose COVID-19 based on chest CT with high consistency; this outperformed the radiologist's assessment. Its auto-segmentation analyses co-related well with those by radiologists and could potentially monitor and predict a patient's clinical course if serial CT assessments are available. It can be integrated into the federated learning framework. • CoviDet can be used as an adjunct to aid clinicians with the CT diagnosis of COVID-19 and can potentially be used for disease monitoring; federated learning can potentially open opportunities for global collaboration.


Subject(s)
Artificial Intelligence , COVID-19 , Algorithms , Humans , Radiologists , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods
6.
Eur Respir J ; 55(6)2020 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-622479

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: During the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), consistent and considerable differences in disease severity and mortality rate of patients treated in Hubei province compared to those in other parts of China have been observed. We sought to compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients being treated inside and outside Hubei province, and explore the factors underlying these differences. METHODS: Collaborating with the National Health Commission, we established a retrospective cohort to study hospitalised COVID-19 cases in China. Clinical characteristics, the rate of severe events and deaths, and the time to critical illness (invasive ventilation or intensive care unit admission or death) were compared between patients within and outside Hubei. The impact of Wuhan-related exposure (a presumed key factor that drove the severe situation in Hubei, as Wuhan is the epicentre as well the administrative centre of Hubei province) and the duration between symptom onset and admission on prognosis were also determined. RESULTS: At the data cut-off (31 January 2020), 1590 cases from 575 hospitals in 31 provincial administrative regions were collected (core cohort). The overall rate of severe cases and mortality was 16.0% and 3.2%, respectively. Patients in Hubei (predominantly with Wuhan-related exposure, 597 (92.3%) out of 647) were older (mean age 49.7 versus 44.9 years), had more cases with comorbidity (32.9% versus 19.7%), higher symptomatic burden, abnormal radiologic manifestations and, especially, a longer waiting time between symptom onset and admission (5.7 versus 4.5 days) compared with patients outside Hubei. Patients in Hubei (severe event rate 23.0% versus 11.1%, death rate 7.3% versus 0.3%, HR (95% CI) for critical illness 1.59 (1.05-2.41)) have a poorer prognosis compared with patients outside Hubei after adjusting for age and comorbidity. However, among patients outside Hubei, the duration from symptom onset to hospitalisation (mean 4.4 versus 4.7 days) and prognosis (HR (95%) 0.84 (0.40-1.80)) were similar between patients with or without Wuhan-related exposure. In the overall population, the waiting time, but neither treated in Hubei nor Wuhan-related exposure, remained an independent prognostic factor (HR (95%) 1.05 (1.01-1.08)). CONCLUSION: There were more severe cases and poorer outcomes for COVID-19 patients treated in Hubei, which might be attributed to the prolonged duration of symptom onset to hospitalisation in the epicentre. Future studies to determine the reason for delaying hospitalisation are warranted.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Hospitalization , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Adult , Aged , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Cardiovascular Diseases/epidemiology , China , Cohort Studies , Comorbidity , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/diagnostic imaging , Cough/etiology , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks , Dyspnea/etiology , Fatigue/etiology , Female , Fever/etiology , Geography , Humans , Hypertension/epidemiology , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pharyngitis/etiology , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnostic imaging , Prognosis , Proportional Hazards Models , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Time Factors , Time-to-Treatment/statistics & numerical data , Tomography, X-Ray Computed
7.
JAMA Intern Med ; 180(8): 1081-1089, 2020 08 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-245503

ABSTRACT

Importance: Early identification of patients with novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who may develop critical illness is of great importance and may aid in delivering proper treatment and optimizing use of resources. Objective: To develop and validate a clinical score at hospital admission for predicting which patients with COVID-19 will develop critical illness based on a nationwide cohort in China. Design, Setting, and Participants: Collaborating with the National Health Commission of China, we established a retrospective cohort of patients with COVID-19 from 575 hospitals in 31 provincial administrative regions as of January 31, 2020. Epidemiological, clinical, laboratory, and imaging variables ascertained at hospital admission were screened using Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) and logistic regression to construct a predictive risk score (COVID-GRAM). The score provides an estimate of the risk that a hospitalized patient with COVID-19 will develop critical illness. Accuracy of the score was measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Data from 4 additional cohorts in China hospitalized with COVID-19 were used to validate the score. Data were analyzed between February 20, 2020 and March 17, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Among patients with COVID-19 admitted to the hospital, critical illness was defined as the composite measure of admission to the intensive care unit, invasive ventilation, or death. Results: The development cohort included 1590 patients. the mean (SD) age of patients in the cohort was 48.9 (15.7) years; 904 (57.3%) were men. The validation cohort included 710 patients with a mean (SD) age of 48.2 (15.2) years, and 382 (53.8%) were men and 172 (24.2%). From 72 potential predictors, 10 variables were independent predictive factors and were included in the risk score: chest radiographic abnormality (OR, 3.39; 95% CI, 2.14-5.38), age (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05), hemoptysis (OR, 4.53; 95% CI, 1.36-15.15), dyspnea (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.18-3.01), unconsciousness (OR, 4.71; 95% CI, 1.39-15.98), number of comorbidities (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.27-2.00), cancer history (OR, 4.07; 95% CI, 1.23-13.43), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10), lactate dehydrogenase (OR, 1.002; 95% CI, 1.001-1.004) and direct bilirubin (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.06-1.24). The mean AUC in the development cohort was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85-0.91) and the AUC in the validation cohort was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.84-0.93). The score has been translated into an online risk calculator that is freely available to the public (http://118.126.104.170/). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, a risk score based on characteristics of COVID-19 patients at the time of admission to the hospital was developed that may help predict a patient's risk of developing critical illness.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/standards , Coronavirus Infections/physiopathology , Critical Care/organization & administration , Critical Illness/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/physiopathology , Adult , Aged , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , China , Cohort Studies , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Risk Assessment/standards , SARS-CoV-2
8.
Eur Respir J ; 55(5)2020 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-18269

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak is evolving rapidly worldwide. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risk of serious adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 by stratifying the comorbidity status. METHODS: We analysed data from 1590 laboratory confirmed hospitalised patients from 575 hospitals in 31 provinces/autonomous regions/provincial municipalities across mainland China between 11 December 2019 and 31 January 2020. We analysed the composite end-points, which consisted of admission to an intensive care unit, invasive ventilation or death. The risk of reaching the composite end-points was compared according to the presence and number of comorbidities. RESULTS: The mean age was 48.9 years and 686 (42.7%) patients were female. Severe cases accounted for 16.0% of the study population. 131 (8.2%) patients reached the composite end-points. 399 (25.1%) reported having at least one comorbidity. The most prevalent comorbidity was hypertension (16.9%), followed by diabetes (8.2%). 130 (8.2%) patients reported having two or more comorbidities. After adjusting for age and smoking status, COPD (HR (95% CI) 2.681 (1.424-5.048)), diabetes (1.59 (1.03-2.45)), hypertension (1.58 (1.07-2.32)) and malignancy (3.50 (1.60-7.64)) were risk factors of reaching the composite end-points. The hazard ratio (95% CI) was 1.79 (1.16-2.77) among patients with at least one comorbidity and 2.59 (1.61-4.17) among patients with two or more comorbidities. CONCLUSION: Among laboratory confirmed cases of COVID-19, patients with any comorbidity yielded poorer clinical outcomes than those without. A greater number of comorbidities also correlated with poorer clinical outcomes.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Adult , COVID-19 , China/epidemiology , Comorbidity , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Prognosis , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL