Back

Decision trees for COVID-19 prognosis learned from patient data: Desaturating the ER with Artificial Intelligence

Bernaola, N.; De Lima, G.; Riano, M.; Llanos, L.; Heili-Frades, S.; Sanchez, O.; Lara, A.; Plaza, G.; Carballo, C.; Gallego, P.; Larranaga, P.; Bielza, C.

2022-05-10 emergency medicine
10.1101/2022.05.09.22274832 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectivesTo present a model that enhances the accuracy of clinicians when presented with a possibly critical Covid-19 patient. MethodsA retrospective study was performed with information of 5,745 SARS-CoV2 infected patients admitted to the Emergency room of 4 public Hospitals in Madrid belonging to Quiron Salud Health Group (QS) from March 2020 to February 2021. Demographics, clinical variables on admission, laboratory markers and therapeutic interventions were extracted from Electronic Clinical Records. Traits related to mortality were found through difference in means testing and through feature selection by learning multiple classification trees with random initialization and selecting the ones that were used the most. We validated the model through cross-validation and tested generalization with an external dataset from 4 hospitals belonging to Sanitas Hospitals Health Group. The usefulness of two different models in real cases was tested by measuring the effect of exposure to the model decision on the accuracy of medical professionals. ResultsOf the 5,745 admitted patients, 1,173 died. Of the 110 variables in the dataset, 34 were found to be related with our definition of criticality (death in <72 hours) or all-cause mortality. The models had an accuracy of 85% and a sensitivity of 50% averaged through 5-fold cross validation. Similar results were found when validating with data from the 4 hospitals from Sanitas. The models were found to have 11% better accuracy than doctors at classifying critical cases and improved accuracy of doctors by 12% for non-critical patients, reducing the cost of mistakes made by 17%.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 1%
17.5%
2
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.3%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 19%
10.1%
4
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
8.4%
50% of probability mass above
5
International Journal of Medical Informatics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.4%
6
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.3%
7
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.7%
8
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.6%
9
Emergency Medicine Journal
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.1%
10
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
11
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
12
BioMed Research International
25 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
13
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
14
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
15
Biomedicines
66 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
16
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
17
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
18
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
19
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
20
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
21
Informatics in Medicine Unlocked
21 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
22
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 23%
0.8%
23
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
24
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
25
Biology
43 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
26
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
27
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
28
Annals of Translational Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
29
Life
27 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%