Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19: : systematic review and critical appraisal

Readers’ note This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This version is update 3 of the original article published on 7 April 2020 (BMJ 2020;369:m1328). Previous updates can be found as data supplements (https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1328/related#datasupp). When citing this paper please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity. Funding: LW, BVC, LH, and MDV acknowledge specific funding for this work from Internal Funds KU Leuven, KOOR, and the COVID-19 Fund. LW is a postdoctoral fellow of Research Foundation-Flanders (FWO) and receives support from ZonMw (grant 10430012010001). BVC received support from FWO (grant G0B4716N) and Internal Funds KU Leuven (grant C24/15/037). TPAD acknowledges financial support from the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (grant 91617050). VMTdJ was supported by the European Union Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under ReCoDID grant agreement 825746. KGMM and JAAD acknowledge financial support from Cochrane Collaboration (SMF 2018). KIES is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care. GSC was supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, and Cancer Research UK (programme grant C49297/A27294). JM was supported by the Cancer Research UK (programme grant C49297/A27294). PD was supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford. MOH is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the United States National Institutes of Health (grant R00 HL141678). ICCvDH and BCTvB received funding from Euregio Meuse-Rhine (grant Covid Data Platform (coDaP) interref EMR187). The funders played no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or reporting.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

AIforCOVID: predicting the clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 applying AI to chest-X-rays. An Italian multicentre study

Recent epidemiological data report that worldwide more than 53 million people have been infected by SARS-CoV-2, resulting in 1.3 million deaths. The disease has been spreading very rapidly and few months after the identification of the first infected, shortage of hospital resources quickly became a problem. In this work we investigate whether chest X-ray (CXR) can be used as a possible tool for the early identification of patients at risk of severe outcome, like intensive care or death. CXR is a radiological technique that compared to computed tomography (CT) it is simpler, faster, more widespread and it induces lower radiation dose. We present a dataset including data collected from 820 patients by six Italian hospitals in spring 2020 during the first COVID-19 emergency. The dataset includes CXR images, several clinical attributes and clinical outcomes. We investigate the potential of artificial intelligence to predict the prognosis of such patients, distinguishing between severe and mild cases, thus offering a baseline reference for other researchers and practitioners. To this goal, we present three approaches that use features extracted from CXR images, either handcrafted or automatically by convolutional neuronal networks, which are then integrated with the clinical data. Exhaustive evaluation shows promising performance both in 10-fold and leave-one-centre-out cross-validation, implying that clinical data and images have the potential to provide useful information for the management of patients and hospital resources

Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Battling Against Covid-19: A Literature Review

© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Colloquially known as coronavirus, the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome CoronaVirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), that causes CoronaVirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), has become a matter of grave concern for every country around the world. The rapid growth of the pandemic has wreaked havoc and prompted the need for immediate reactions to curb the effects. To manage the problems, many research in a variety of area of science have started studying the issue. Artificial Intelligence is among the area of science that has found great applications in tackling the problem in many aspects. Here, we perform an overview on the applications of AI in a variety of fields including diagnosis of the disease via different types of tests and symptoms, monitoring patients, identifying severity of a patient, processing covid-19 related imaging tests, epidemiology, pharmaceutical studies, etc. The aim of this paper is to perform a comprehensive survey on the applications of AI in battling against the difficulties the outbreak has caused. Thus we cover every way that AI approaches have been employed and to cover all the research until the writing of this paper. We try organize the works in a way that overall picture is comprehensible. Such a picture, although full of details, is very helpful in understand where AI sits in current pandemonium. We also tried to conclude the paper with ideas on how the problems can be tackled in a better way and provide some suggestions for future works.Peer reviewe

Systematic evaluation and external validation of 22 prognostic models among hospitalised adults with COVID-19: An observational cohort study

Background: The number of proposed prognostic models for COVID-19 is growing rapidly, but it is unknown whether any are suitable for widespread clinical implementation. / Methods: We independently externally validated the performance candidate prognostic models, identified through a living systematic review, among consecutive adults admitted to hospital with a final diagnosis of COVID-19. We reconstructed candidate models as per original descriptions and evaluated performance for their original intended outcomes using predictors measured at admission. We assessed discrimination, calibration and net benefit, compared to the default strategies of treating all and no patients, and against the most discriminating predictor in univariable analyses. / Results: We tested 22 candidate prognostic models among 411 participants with COVID-19, of whom 180 (43.8%) and 115 (28.0%) met the endpoints of clinical deterioration and mortality, respectively. Highest areas under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves were achieved by the NEWS2 score for prediction of deterioration over 24 h (0.78; 95% CI 0.73–0.83), and a novel model for prediction of deterioration <14 days from admission (0.78; 0.74–0.82). The most discriminating univariable predictors were admission oxygen saturation on room air for in-hospital deterioration (AUROC 0.76; 0.71–0.81), and age for in-hospital mortality (AUROC 0.76; 0.71–0.81). No prognostic model demonstrated consistently higher net benefit than these univariable predictors, across a range of threshold probabilities. / Conclusions: Admission oxygen saturation on room air and patient age are strong predictors of deterioration and mortality among hospitalised adults with COVID-19, respectively. None of the prognostic models evaluated here offered incremental value for patient stratification to these univariable predictors

Systematic evaluation and external validation of 22 prognostic models among hospitalised adults with COVID-19: an observational cohort study.

The number of proposed prognostic models for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is growing rapidly, but it is unknown whether any are suitable for widespread clinical implementation.We independently externally validated the performance of candidate prognostic models, identified through a living systematic review, among consecutive adults admitted to hospital with a final diagnosis of COVID-19. We reconstructed candidate models as per original descriptions and evaluated performance for their original intended outcomes using predictors measured at the time of admission. We assessed discrimination, calibration and net benefit, compared to the default strategies of treating all and no patients, and against the most discriminating predictors in univariable analyses.We tested 22 candidate prognostic models among 411 participants with COVID-19, of whom 180 (43.8%) and 115 (28.0%) met the endpoints of clinical deterioration and mortality, respectively. Highest areas under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves were achieved by the NEWS2 score for prediction of deterioration over 24 h (0.78, 95% CI 0.73-0.83), and a novel model for prediction of deterioration <14 days from admission (0.78, 95% CI 0.74-0.82). The most discriminating univariable predictors were admission oxygen saturation on room air for in-hospital deterioration (AUROC 0.76, 95% CI 0.71-0.81), and age for in-hospital mortality (AUROC 0.76, 95% CI 0.71-0.81). No prognostic model demonstrated consistently higher net benefit than these univariable predictors, across a range of threshold probabilities.Admission oxygen saturation on room air and patient age are strong predictors of deterioration and mortality among hospitalised adults with COVID-19, respectively. None of the prognostic models evaluated here offered incremental value for patient stratification to these univariable predictors

What Can COVID-19 Teach Us about Using AI in Pandemics?

The COVID-19 pandemic put significant strain on societies and their resources, with the healthcare system and workers being particularly affected. Artificial Intelligence (AI) offers the unique possibility of improving the response to a pandemic as it emerges and evolves. Here, we utilize the WHO framework of a pandemic evolution to analyze the various AI applications. Specifically, we analyzed AI from the perspective of all five domains of the WHO pandemic response. To effectively review the current scattered literature, we organized a sample of relevant literature from various professional and popular resources. The article concludes with a consideration of AI\u27s weaknesses as key factors affecting AI in future pandemic preparedness and response