Personalized prescription of ACEI/ARBs for hypertensive COVID-19 patients

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.30.20223594: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Algorithms were trained using Python 3.6.3 and Julia 1.2.0 through Scikit-learn [40], XGBoost [14], and the Interpretable AI [28] packages.
    Python
    suggested: (IPython, RRID:SCR_001658)
    Scikit-learn
    suggested: (scikit-learn, RRID:SCR_002577)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    4.2 Limitations: There are several limitations to this study. We consider the effect of ACEI/ARBs in isolation, rather than in combination with other treatments. This assumes that the effect of other treatments is independent from the effect of ACEI/ARBs. This is consistent with existing literature, in which COVID-19 treatments have generally been considered separately rather than as combination regimens. However, there is potential to consider treatment strategies more holistically as drug combinations. The methodology presented in this work could be easily extended to the case of multiple treatments: rather than training models for the treated and untreated group, as done here, models could be trained for N treatment groups, and the same prescription and voting scheme could be followed to choose between the N alternatives. This was impractical in the current study given the scope of the available data, as the sample sizes become much smaller when dividing the population by treatment combination, but this could be considered in future work as larger datasets become available. All of the data included in the derivation and validation cohorts were collected between February to May 2020. As a result, our investigation carries the limitations associated with the design of observational studies. Moreover, we would like to highlight that the outcome prevalence seems to be dependent on the relative timing of the pandemic curve. Hence, confounding factors such as the degree of conge...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.