COVID-19 diagnosis prediction in emergency care patients: a machine learning approach

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has increased the necessity of immediate clinical decisions and effective usage of healthcare resources. Currently, the most validated diagnosis test for COVID-19 (RT-PCR) is in shortage in most developing countries, which may increase infection rates and delay important preventive measures. The objective of this study was to predict the risk of positive COVID-19 diagnosis with machine learning, using as predictors only results from emergency care admission exams. We collected data from 235 adult patients from the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein in São Paulo, Brazil, from 17 to 30 of March, 2020, of which 102 (43%) received a positive diagnosis of COVID-19 from RT-PCR tests. Five machine learning algorithms (neural networks, random forests, gradient boosting trees, logistic regression and support vector machines) were trained on a random sample of 70% of the patients, and performance was tested on new unseen data (30%). The best predictive performance was obtained by the support vector machines algorithm (AUC: 0.85; Sensitivity: 0.68; Specificity: 0.85; Brier Score: 0.16). The three most important variables for the predictive performance of the algorithm were the number of lymphocytes, leukocytes and eosinophils, respectively. In conclusion, we found that targeted decisions for receiving COVID-19 tests using only routinely-collected data is a promising new area with the use of machine learning algorithms.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.04.20052092: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    RandomizationThe sample was randomly divided using a 70-30 split, where 70% of the patients were used to train the machine learning algorithms, and the other 30% were used to test the performance of the models on new unseen data.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    All analyses were performed in Python using the scikit-learn library.
    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: 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.
    • No funding statement was detected.
    • 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.