Contrastive learning improves critical event prediction in COVID-19 patients.

Deep learning (DL) models typically require large-scale, balanced training data to be robust, generalizable, and effective in the context of healthcare. This has been a major issue for developing DL models for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, where data are highly class imbalanced. Conventional approaches in DL use cross-entropy loss (CEL), which often suffers from poor margin classification. We show that contrastive loss (CL) improves the performance of CEL, especially in imbalanced electronic health records (EHR) data for COVID-19 analyses. We use a diverse EHR dataset to predict three outcomes: mortality, intubation, and intensive care unit (ICU) transfer in hospitalized COVID-19 patients over multiple time windows. To compare the performance of CEL and CL, models are tested on the full dataset and a restricted dataset. CL models consistently outperform CEL models, with differences ranging from 0.04 to 0.15 for area under the precision and recall curve (AUPRC) and 0.05 to 0.1 for area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC).

Machine Learning to Predict Mortality and Critical Events in a Cohort of Patients With COVID-19 in New York City: Model Development and Validation.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has infected millions of people worldwide and is responsible for several hundred thousand fatalities. The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated thoughtful resource allocation and early identification of high-risk patients. However, effective methods to meet these needs are lacking. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to analyze the electronic health records (EHRs) of patients who tested positive for COVID-19 and were admitted to hospitals in the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City; to develop machine learning models for making predictions about the hospital course of the patients over clinically meaningful time horizons based on patient characteristics at admission; and to assess the performance of these models at multiple hospitals and time points. METHODS: We used Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) and baseline comparator models to predict in-hospital mortality and critical events at time windows of 3, 5, 7, and 10 days from admission. Our study population included harmonized EHR data from five hospitals in New York City for 4098 COVID-19-positive patients admitted from March 15 to May 22, 2020. The models were first trained on patients from a single hospital (n=1514) before or on May 1, externally validated on patients from four other hospitals (n=2201) before or on May 1, and prospectively validated on all patients after May 1 (n=383). Finally, we established model interpretability to identify and rank variables that drive model predictions. RESULTS: Upon cross-validation, the XGBoost classifier outperformed baseline models, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) for mortality of 0.89 at 3 days, 0.85 at 5 and 7 days, and 0.84 at 10 days. XGBoost also performed well for critical event prediction, with an AUC-ROC of 0.80 at 3 days, 0.79 at 5 days, 0.80 at 7 days, and 0.81 at 10 days. In external validation, XGBoost achieved an AUC-ROC of 0.88 at 3 days, 0.86 at 5 days, 0.86 at 7 days, and 0.84 at 10 days for mortality prediction. Similarly, the unimputed XGBoost model achieved an AUC-ROC of 0.78 at 3 days, 0.79 at 5 days, 0.80 at 7 days, and 0.81 at 10 days. Trends in performance on prospective validation sets were similar. At 7 days, acute kidney injury on admission, elevated LDH, tachypnea, and hyperglycemia were the strongest drivers of critical event prediction, while higher age, anion gap, and C-reactive protein were the strongest drivers of mortality prediction. CONCLUSIONS: We externally and prospectively trained and validated machine learning models for mortality and critical events for patients with COVID-19 at different time horizons. These models identified at-risk patients and uncovered underlying relationships that predicted outcomes.

Characterization of Patients Who Return to Hospital Following Discharge from Hospitalization for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Data on patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who return to hospital after discharge are scarce. Characterization of these patients may inform post-hospitalization care. OBJECTIVE: To describe clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 who returned to the emergency department (ED) or required readmission within 14 days of discharge. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of SARS-COV-2-positive patients with index hospitalization between February 27 and April 12, 2020, with ≥ 14-day follow-up. Significance was defined as P < 0.05 after multiplying P by 125 study-wide comparisons. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 discharged alive from five New York City hospitals. MAIN MEASURES: Readmission or return to ED following discharge. RESULTS: Of 2864 discharged patients, 103 (3.6%) returned for emergency care after a median of 4.5 days, with 56 requiring inpatient readmission. The most common reason for return was respiratory distress (50%). Compared with patients who did not return, there were higher proportions of COPD (6.8% vs 2.9%) and hypertension (36% vs 22.1%) among those who returned. Patients who returned also had a shorter median length of stay (LOS) during index hospitalization (4.5 [2.9,9.1] vs 6.7 [3.5, 11.5] days; Padjusted = 0.006), and were less likely to have required intensive care on index hospitalization (5.8% vs 19%; Padjusted = 0.001). A trend towards association between absence of in-hospital treatment-dose anticoagulation on index admission and return to hospital was also observed (20.9% vs 30.9%, Padjusted = 0.06). On readmission, rates of intensive care and death were 5.8% and 3.6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Return to hospital after admission for COVID-19 was infrequent within 14 days of discharge. The most common cause for return was respiratory distress. Patients who returned more likely had COPD and hypertension, shorter LOS on index-hospitalization, and lower rates of in-hospital treatment-dose anticoagulation. Future studies should focus on whether these comorbid conditions, longer LOS, and anticoagulation are associated with reduced readmissions.