Validation of Machine Learning Models to Predict Adverse Outcomes in Patients with COVID-19: A Prospective Pilot Study

4Citations
Citations of this article
22Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Purpose: We previously developed learning models for predicting the need for intensive care and oxygen among patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Here, we aimed to prospectively validate the accuracy of these models. Materials and Methods: Probabilities of the need for intensive care [intensive care unit (ICU) score] and oxygen (oxygen score) were calculated from information provided by hospitalized COVID-19 patients (n=44) via a web-based application. The performance of baseline scores to predict 30-day outcomes was assessed. Results: Among 44 patients, 5 and 15 patients needed intensive care and oxygen, respectively. The area under the curve of ICU score and oxygen score to predict 30-day outcomes were 0.774 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.614–0.934] and 0.728 (95% CI: 0.559–0.898), respectively. The ICU scores of patients needing intensive care increased daily by 0.71 points (95% CI: 0.20–1.22) after hospitalization and by 0.85 points (95% CI: 0.36–1.35) after symptom onset, which were significantly different from those in individuals not needing intensive care (p=0.002 and <0.001, respectively). Trends in daily oxygen scores overall were not markedly different; however, when the scores were evaluated within <7 days after symptom onset, the patients needing oxygen showed a higher daily increase in oxygen scores [1.81 (95% CI: 0.48–3.14) vs.-0.28 (95% CI: 1.00–0.43), p=0.007]. Conclusion: Our machine learning models showed good performance for predicting the outcomes of COVID-19 patients and could thus be useful for patient triage and monitoring.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kim, H. J., Heo, J. N., Han, D., & Oh, H. S. (2022). Validation of Machine Learning Models to Predict Adverse Outcomes in Patients with COVID-19: A Prospective Pilot Study. Yonsei Medical Journal, 63(5), 422–429. https://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2022.63.5.422

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free