Effective deep learning approaches for predicting COVID-19 outcomes from chest computed tomography volumes

  1. Anthony Ortiz
  2. Anusua Trivedi
  3. Jocelyn Desbiens
  4. Marian Blazes
  5. Caleb Robinson
  6. Sunil Gupta
  7. Rahul Dodhia
  8. Pavan K. Bhatraju
  9. W. Conrad Liles
  10. Aaron Lee
  11. Juan M. Lavista Ferres

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The rapid evolution of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in an urgent need for effective clinical tools to reduce transmission and manage severe illness. Numerous teams are quickly developing artificial intelligence approaches to these problems, including using deep learning to predict COVID-19 diagnosis and prognosis from chest computed tomography (CT) imaging data. In this work, we assess the value of aggregated chest CT data for COVID-19 prognosis compared to clinical metadata alone. We develop a novel patient-level algorithm to aggregate the chest CT volume into a 2D representation that can be easily integrated with clinical metadata to distinguish COVID-19 pneumonia from chest CT volumes from healthy participants and participants with other viral pneumonia. Furthermore, we present a multitask model for joint segmentation of different classes of pulmonary lesions present in COVID-19 infected lungs that can outperform individual segmentation models for each task. We directly compare this multitask segmentation approach to combining feature-agnostic volumetric CT classification feature maps with clinical metadata for predicting mortality. We show that the combination of features derived from the chest CT volumes improve the AUC performance to 0.80 from the 0.52 obtained by using patients’ clinical data alone. These approaches enable the automated extraction of clinically relevant features from chest CT volumes for risk stratification of COVID-19 patients.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1038/s41598-022-05532-0
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.15.20213462: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    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.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.10.15.20213462v1 on medRxiv