COVID-19 machine learning model predicts outcomes in older patients from various European countries, between pandemic waves, and in a cohort of Asian, African, and American patients.
Journal
PLOS digital health
ISSN: 2767-3170
Titre abrégé: PLOS Digit Health
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9918335064206676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2022
Nov 2022
Historique:
received:
29
06
2022
accepted:
26
09
2022
entrez:
22
2
2023
pubmed:
23
2
2023
medline:
23
2
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
COVID-19 remains a complex disease in terms of its trajectory and the diversity of outcomes rendering disease management and clinical resource allocation challenging. Varying symptomatology in older patients as well as limitation of clinical scoring systems have created the need for more objective and consistent methods to aid clinical decision making. In this regard, machine learning methods have been shown to enhance prognostication, while improving consistency. However, current machine learning approaches have been limited by lack of generalisation to diverse patient populations, between patients admitted at different waves and small sample sizes. We sought to investigate whether machine learning models, derived on routinely collected clinical data, can generalise well i) between European countries, ii) between European patients admitted at different COVID-19 waves, and iii) between geographically diverse patients, namely whether a model derived on the European patient cohort can be used to predict outcomes of patients admitted to Asian, African and American ICUs. We compare Logistic Regression, Feed Forward Neural Network and XGBoost algorithms to analyse data from 3,933 older patients with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis in predicting three outcomes, namely: ICU mortality, 30-day mortality and patients at low risk of deterioration. The patients were admitted to ICUs located in 37 countries, between January 11, 2020, and April 27, 2021. The XGBoost model derived on the European cohort and externally validated in cohorts of Asian, African, and American patients, achieved AUC of 0.89 (95% CI 0.89-0.89) in predicting ICU mortality, AUC of 0.86 (95% CI 0.86-0.86) for 30-day mortality prediction and AUC of 0.86 (95% CI 0.86-0.86) in predicting low-risk patients. Similar AUC performance was achieved also when predicting outcomes between European countries and between pandemic waves, while the models showed high calibration quality. Furthermore, saliency analysis showed that FiO2 values of up to 40% do not appear to increase the predicted risk of ICU and 30-day mortality, while PaO2 values of 75 mmHg or lower are associated with a sharp increase in the predicted risk of ICU and 30-day mortality. Lastly, increase in SOFA scores also increase the predicted risk, but only up to a value of 8. Beyond these scores the predicted risk remains consistently high. The models captured both the dynamic course of the disease as well as similarities and differences between the diverse patient cohorts, enabling prediction of disease severity, identification of low-risk patients and potentially supporting effective planning of essential clinical resources. NCT04321265.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
COVID-19 remains a complex disease in terms of its trajectory and the diversity of outcomes rendering disease management and clinical resource allocation challenging. Varying symptomatology in older patients as well as limitation of clinical scoring systems have created the need for more objective and consistent methods to aid clinical decision making. In this regard, machine learning methods have been shown to enhance prognostication, while improving consistency. However, current machine learning approaches have been limited by lack of generalisation to diverse patient populations, between patients admitted at different waves and small sample sizes.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
We sought to investigate whether machine learning models, derived on routinely collected clinical data, can generalise well i) between European countries, ii) between European patients admitted at different COVID-19 waves, and iii) between geographically diverse patients, namely whether a model derived on the European patient cohort can be used to predict outcomes of patients admitted to Asian, African and American ICUs.
METHODS
METHODS
We compare Logistic Regression, Feed Forward Neural Network and XGBoost algorithms to analyse data from 3,933 older patients with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis in predicting three outcomes, namely: ICU mortality, 30-day mortality and patients at low risk of deterioration. The patients were admitted to ICUs located in 37 countries, between January 11, 2020, and April 27, 2021.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The XGBoost model derived on the European cohort and externally validated in cohorts of Asian, African, and American patients, achieved AUC of 0.89 (95% CI 0.89-0.89) in predicting ICU mortality, AUC of 0.86 (95% CI 0.86-0.86) for 30-day mortality prediction and AUC of 0.86 (95% CI 0.86-0.86) in predicting low-risk patients. Similar AUC performance was achieved also when predicting outcomes between European countries and between pandemic waves, while the models showed high calibration quality. Furthermore, saliency analysis showed that FiO2 values of up to 40% do not appear to increase the predicted risk of ICU and 30-day mortality, while PaO2 values of 75 mmHg or lower are associated with a sharp increase in the predicted risk of ICU and 30-day mortality. Lastly, increase in SOFA scores also increase the predicted risk, but only up to a value of 8. Beyond these scores the predicted risk remains consistently high.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The models captured both the dynamic course of the disease as well as similarities and differences between the diverse patient cohorts, enabling prediction of disease severity, identification of low-risk patients and potentially supporting effective planning of essential clinical resources.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
BACKGROUND
NCT04321265.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36812571
doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000136
pii: PDIG-D-22-00185
pmc: PMC9931233
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT04321265']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e0000136Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2022 Mamandipoor et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
JCS report grants from Orion Pharma, Abbott Nutrition International, B. Braun Medical AG, CSEM AG, Edwards Lifesciences Services GmbH, Kenta Biotech Ltd, Maquet Critical Care AB, Omnicare Clinical Research AG, Nestle, Pierre Fabre Pharma AG, Pfizer, Bard Medica S.A., Abbott AG, Anandic Medical Systems, Pan Gas AG Healthcare, Bracco, Hamilton Medical AG, Fresenius Kabi, Getinge Group Maquet AG, Dräger AG, Teleflex Medical GmbH, Glaxo Smith Kline, Merck Sharp and Dohme AG, Eli Lilly and Company, Baxter, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, CSL Behring, Novartis, Covidien, Phagenesis, and Nycomed outside the submitted work. The money was paid into departmental funds. No personal financial gain applied. The other authors declare no Competing Financial or Non-Financial Interests.
Références
Ann Emerg Med. 2020 Oct;76(4):442-453
pubmed: 33012378
Crit Care. 2021 Apr 19;25(1):149
pubmed: 33874987
BMC Genomics. 2020 Jan 2;21(1):6
pubmed: 31898477
IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 2022 Jan 25;PP:
pubmed: 35077357
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2020 Jan 6;20(1):4
pubmed: 31906931
BMJ. 2020 Apr 7;369:m1328
pubmed: 32265220
Lancet Digit Health. 2021 Jul;3(7):e425-e433
pubmed: 34049834
NPJ Digit Med. 2020 Oct 6;3:130
pubmed: 33083565
Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2021;79(1):109-120
pubmed: 34487039
Intensive Care Med Exp. 2019 Dec 10;7(1):70
pubmed: 31823128
J Med Ethics. 2021 Jan 29;:
pubmed: 33514637
Lancet. 2020 Jun 6;395(10239):1763-1770
pubmed: 32442528
Patterns (N Y). 2020 Sep 11;1(6):100092
pubmed: 32838344
JMIR Med Inform. 2022 Mar 31;10(3):e32949
pubmed: 35099394
JAMA. 2021 Apr 13;325(14):1469-1470
pubmed: 33595630
Ann Intensive Care. 2021 Aug 21;11(1):128
pubmed: 34417919
J Gen Intern Med. 2021 Nov;36(11):3462-3470
pubmed: 34003427
Eur Respir J. 2021 Oct 7;58(4):
pubmed: 34172464
Nat Commun. 2020 Oct 6;11(1):5033
pubmed: 33024092
N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 30;382(18):1708-1720
pubmed: 32109013
Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395(10229):1054-1062
pubmed: 32171076
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother. 2021 Jan 16;7(1):76-77
pubmed: 32645153
Intern Emerg Med. 2020 Nov;15(8):1435-1443
pubmed: 32812204
Chest. 2021 Jun;159(6):2264-2273
pubmed: 33345948
PLoS One. 2021 Feb 11;16(2):e0246318
pubmed: 33571301
J Clin Med. 2020 Jul 04;9(7):
pubmed: 32635468