Hemogram data as a tool for decision-making in COVID-19 management: applications to resource scarcity scenarios

  1. Eduardo Avila
  2. Alessandro Kahmann
  3. Clarice Alho
  4. Marcio Dorn

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

COVID-19 pandemics has challenged emergency response systems worldwide, with widespread reports of essential services breakdown and collapse of health care structure. A critical element involves essential workforce management since current protocols recommend release from duty for symptomatic individuals, including essential personnel. Testing capacity is also problematic in several countries, where diagnosis demand outnumbers available local testing capacity.

Purpose

This work describes a machine learning model derived from hemogram exam data performed in symptomatic patients and how they can be used to predict qRT-PCR test results.

Methods

Hemogram exams data from 510 symptomatic patients (73 positives and 437 negatives) were used to model and predict qRT-PCR results through Naïve-Bayes algorithms. Different scarcity scenarios were simulated, including symptomatic essential workforce management and absence of diagnostic tests. Adjusts in assumed prior probabilities allow fine-tuning of the model, according to actual prediction context.

Results

Proposed models can predict COVID-19 qRT-PCR results in symptomatic individuals with high accuracy, sensitivity and specificity, yielding a 100% sensitivity and 22.6% specificity with a prior of 0.9999; 76.7% for both sensitivity and specificity with a prior of 0.2933; and 0% sensitivity and 100% specificity with a prior of 0.001. Regarding background scarcity context, resources allocation can be significantly improved when model-based patient selection is observed, compared to random choice.

Conclusions

Machine learning models can be derived from widely available, quick, and inexpensive exam data in order to predict qRT-PCR results used in COVID-19 diagnosis. These models can be used to assist strategic decision-making in resource scarcity scenarios, including personnel shortage, lack of medical resources, and testing insufficiency.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.7717/peerj.9482
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.09.20096818: (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: 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.
    • 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 10.1101/2020.05.09.20096818v1 on medRxiv