Back

Development of a Predictive Score for COVID-19 Diagnosis based on Demographics and Symptoms in Patients Attended at a Dedicated Screening Unit

Zavascki, A. P.; Gazzana, M. B.; Bidart, J. P.; Fernandes, P. S.; Galiotto, A.; Kawski, C. T.; Nasi, L. A.; Falci, D. R.

2020-05-19 infectious diseases
10.1101/2020.05.14.20101931 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThe diagnosis of COVID-19 based on clinical evaluation is difficult because symptoms often overlap with other respiratory diseases. A clinical score predictive of COVID-19 based on readily assessed variables may be useful in settings with restricted or no access to molecular diagnostic tests. MethodsA score based on demographics and symptoms was developed in a cross-sectional study including patients attended in a dedicated COVID-19 screening unit. A backward stepwise logistic regression model was constructed and values for each variable were assigned according to their {beta} coefficient values in the final model. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was constructed and its area under the curve (AUC) was calculated. ResultsA total of 464 patients were included: 98 (21.1%) COVID-19 and 366 (78.9%) non-COVID-19 patients. The score included variables independently associated with COVID-19 in the final model: age [&ge;]60 years (2 points), fever (2), dyspnea (1), fatigue (1 point) and coryza (-1). Score values were significantly higher in COVID-19 than non-COVID-19 patients: median (Interquartile Range), 3 (2-4), and 1 (0-2), respectively; P<0.001. The score had an AUC of 0.80 (95% Confidence Interval [CI], 0.76-0.86). The specificity of scores [&ge;]4 and [&ge;]5 points were 90.4 (95%CI, 87.0-93.3) and 96.2 (95%CI, 93.7-97.9), respectively. ConclusionsThis preliminary score based on patients symptoms is a feasible tool that may be useful in setting with restricted or no access to molecular tests in a pandemic period, owing to the high specificity. Further studies are required to validate the score in other populations.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.