Accuracy of automated computer aided-risk scoring systems to estimate the risk of COVID-19 and in-hospital mortality: a retrospective cohort study
Faisal, M.; Mohammed, M. A.; Richardson, D.; Fiori, M.; Beatson, K.
Show abstract
ObjectivesAlthough a set of computer-aided risk scoring systems (CARSS), that use the National Early Warning Score and routine blood tests results, have been validated for predicting in-hospital mortality and sepsis in unplanned admission to hospital, little is known about their performance for COVID-19 patients. We compare the performance of CARSS in unplanned admissions with COVID-19 during the first phase of the pandemic. Designa retrospective cross-sectional study SettingTwo acute hospitals (Scarborough and York) are combined into a single dataset and analysed collectively. ParticipantsAdult (>=18 years) non-elective admissions discharged between 11-March-2020 to 13-June-2020 with an index NEWS electronically recorded within {+/-}24 hours. We assessed the performance of all four risk score (for sepsis: CARS_N, CARS_NB; for mortality: CARM_N, CARM_NB) according to discrimination (c-statistic) and calibration (graphically) in predicting the risk of COVID-19 and in-hospital mortality. ResultsThe risk of in-hospital mortality following emergency medical admission was 8.4% (500/6444) and 9.6% (620/6444) had a diagnosis of COVID-19. For predicting COVID-19 admissions, the CARS_N model had the highest discrimination 0.73 (0.71 to 0.75) and calibration slope 0.81 (0.72 to 0.89). For predicting in-hospital mortality, the CARM_NB model had the highest discrimination 0.84 (0.82 to 0.75) and calibration slope 0.89 (0.81 to 0.98). ConclusionsTwo of the computer-aided risk scores (CARS_N and CARM_NB) are reasonably accurate for predicting the risk of COVID-19 and in-hospital mortality, respectively. They may be clinically useful as an early warning system at the time of admission especially to triage large numbers of unplanned hospital admissions because they are automated and require no additional data collection. Article SummaryO_LIIn this study, we found that two of the automated computer-aided risk scores are reasonably accurate for predicting the risk of COVID-19 and in-hospital mortality, respectively. C_LIO_LIThey may be clinically useful as an early warning system at the time of admission especially to triage large numbers of unplanned hospital admissions because they are automated and require no additional data collection. C_LIO_LIAlthough we focused on in-hospital mortality (because we aimed to aid clinical decision making in the hospital), the impact of this selection bias needs to be assessed by capturing out-of-hospital mortality by linking death certification data and hospital data. C_LIO_LIWe identified COVID-19 based on ICD-10 code U071 which was determined by COVID-19 swab test results (hospital or community) and clinical judgment and so our findings are constrained by the accuracy of these methods C_LI
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Regional performance variation in external validation of four prediction models for severity of COVID-19 at hospital admission: An observational multi-centre cohort study 97%
- Derivation and validation of a triage tool for acutely ill adults with suspected COVID-19: The PRIEST observational cohort study 97%
- Acute respiratory distress syndrome after SARS-CoV-2 infection on young adult population: international observational federated study based on electronic health records through the 4CE consortium 95%
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 99%
- 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 99%
- Performance of digital Early Warning Score (NEWS2) in a cardiac specialist setting: retrospective cohort study 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Development of a data-driven COVID-19 prognostication tool to inform triage and step-down care for hospitalised patients in Hong Kong: A population based cohort study 95%
- OASIS+: leveraging machine learning to improve the prognostic accuracy of OASIS severity score for predicting in-hospital mortality 94%
- Development and Validation of ‘Patient Optimizer’ (POP) Algorithms for Predicting Surgical Risk with Machine Learning 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Predicting mortality in SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19) positive patients in the inpatient setting using a Novel Deep Neural Network 95%
- Image and structured data analysis for prognostication of health outcomes in patients presenting to the Emergency Department during the COVID-19 pandemic 93%
- Predicting Prognosis in COVID-19 Patients using Machine Learning and Readily Available Clinical Data 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical Characteristics And Prognostic Factors For ICU Admission Of Patients With COVID-19 Using Machine Learning And Natural Language Processing 94%
- Machine Learning to Predict Mortality and Critical Events in COVID-19 Positive New York City Patients 93%
- Using Automated-Machine Learning to Predict COVID-19 Patient Survival: Identify Influential Biomarkers 93%
"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.