Development and calibration of a simple mortality risk score for hospitalized COVID-19 adults
Yoo, E.; Percha, B.; Tomlinson, M.; Razuk, V.; Pan, S.; Basist, M.; Tandon, P.; Wang, J. G.; Gao, C.; Bose, S.; Gidwani, U. K.
Show abstract
ObjectivesMortality risk scores, such as SOFA, qSOFA, and CURB-65, are quick, effective tools for communicating a patients prognosis and guiding therapeutic decisions. Most use simple calculations that can be performed by hand. While several COVID-19 specific risk scores exist, they lack the ease of use of these simpler scores. The objectives of this study were (1) to design, validate, and calibrate a simple, easy-to-use mortality risk score for COVID-19 patients and (2) to recalibrate SOFA, qSOFA, and CURB-65 in a hospitalized COVID-19 population. DesignRetrospective cohort study incorporating demographic, clinical, laboratory, and admissions data from electronic health records. SettingMulti-hospital health system in New York City. Five hospitals were included: one quaternary care facility, one tertiary care facility, and three community hospitals. ParticipantsPatients (n=4840) with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV2 infection who were admitted between March 1 and April 28, 2020. Main outcome measuresGrays K-sample test for the cumulative incidence of a competing risk was used to assess and rank 48 different variables associations with mortality. Candidate variables were added to the composite score using DeLongs test to evaluate their effect on predictive performance (AUC) of in-hospital mortality. Final AUCs for the new score, SOFA, qSOFA, and CURB-65 were assessed on an independent test set. ResultsOf 48 variables investigated, 36 (75%) displayed significant (p<0.05 by Grays test) associations with mortality. The variables selected for the final score were (1) oxygen support level, (2) troponin, (3) blood urea nitrogen, (4) lymphocyte percentage, (5) Glasgow Coma Score, and (6) age. The new score, COBALT, outperforms SOFA, qSOFA, and CURB-65 at predicting mortality in this COVID-19 population: AUCs for initial, maximum, and mean COBALT scores were 0.81, 0.91, and 0.92, compared to 0.77, 0.87, and 0.87 for SOFA. We provide COVID-19 specific mortality estimates at all score levels for COBALT, SOFA, qSOFA, and CURB-65. ConclusionsThe COBALT score provides a simple way to estimate mortality risk in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with superior performance to SOFA and other scores currently in widespread use. Evaluation of SOFA, qSOFA, and CURB-65 in this population highlights the importance of recalibrating mortality risk scores when they are used under novel conditions, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. This studys approach to score design could also be applied in other contexts to create simple, practical and high-performing mortality risk scores. Trial registrationNA Funding sourceThe authors declare that there was no external funding provided. Summary boxO_ST_ABSWhat is already known on this topicC_ST_ABSO_LIMortality risk scores are widely used in clinical settings to facilitate communication with patients and families, guide goals of care discussions, and optimize resource allocation. C_LIO_LIAlthough popular mortality risk scores like SOFA, qSOFA, and CURB-65 are routinely used in COVID-19 populations, they were originally calibrated in different contexts and their true performance among hospitalized COVID-19 patients is unknown. C_LIO_LISeveral dedicated COVID-19 mortality risk scores have been created during the 2019-2020 pandemic, but all use complicated formulae or machine learning algorithms and are difficult or impossible to calculate by hand, limiting their applicability at the bedside. C_LI What this study addsO_LIWe describe a data-driven, simple, and hand-calculable COVID-specific mortality risk score (COBALT) that has superior performance to SOFA, qSOFA, and CURB-65 in a hospitalized COVID-19 patient population. C_LIO_LIWe provide COVID-specific mortality estimates for SOFA, qSOFA, and CURB-65 using data from 4840 patients in a large and diverse New York City multihospital health system. C_LI
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Development and validation of automated computer aided-risk score for predicting the risk of in-hospital mortality using first electronically recorded blood test results and vital signs for COVID-19 hospital admissions: a retrospective development and validation study 96%
- Use of the first National Early Warning Score recorded within 24 hours of admission to estimate the risk of in-hospital mortality in unplanned COVID-19 patients: a retrospective cohort study 95%
- Performance of digital Early Warning Score (NEWS2) in a cardiac specialist setting: retrospective cohort study 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Derivation and validation of a triage tool for acutely ill adults with suspected COVID-19: The PRIEST observational cohort study 96%
- An Online Risk Calculator for Rapid Prediction of In-hospital Mortality from COVID-19 Infection 95%
- Regional performance variation in external validation of four prediction models for severity of COVID-19 at hospital admission: An observational multi-centre cohort study 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Survival of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Northern Italy: a population-based cohort study by the ITA-COVID19 Network 92%
- Sixty-day mortality among 520 Italian hospitalized COVID-19 patients according to the adopted ventilatory strategy in the context of an integrated multidisciplinary clinical organization: a population-based cohort study 91%
- Is age the most important risk factor in COVID-19 patients? The relevance of comorbidity burden: A retrospective analysis of 10,090 hospitalizations 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- The utility of established prognostic scores in COVID-19 hospital admissions: a multicentre prospective evaluation of CURB-65, NEWS2, and qSOFA 93%
- Clinical characteristics and outcomes of adult patients admitted with COVID-19 in East London: a retrospective cohort analysis 92%
- Psychometric analysis of the modified Covid-19 Yorkshire Rehabilitation Scale (C19-YRSm) in a prospective multicentre study 91%
"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.