Dataset Information

Developing a COVID-19 mortality risk prediction model when individual-level data are not available.

ABSTRACT: At the COVID-19 pandemic onset, when individual-level data of COVID-19 patients were not yet available, there was already a need for risk predictors to support prevention and treatment decisions. Here, we report a hybrid strategy to create such a predictor, combining the development of a baseline severe respiratory infection risk predictor and a post-processing method to calibrate the predictions to reported COVID-19 case-fatality rates. With the accumulation of a COVID-19 patient cohort, this predictor is validated to have good discrimination (area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve of 0.943) and calibration (markedly improved compared to that of the baseline predictor). At a 5% risk threshold, 15% of patients are marked as high-risk, achieving a sensitivity of 88%. We thus demonstrate that even at the onset of a pandemic, shrouded in epidemiologic fog of war, it is possible to provide a useful risk predictor, now widely used in a large healthcare organization.

SUBMITTER: Barda N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7477233 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Developing a COVID-19 mortality risk prediction model when individual-level data are not available.

Barda Noam N Riesel Dan D Akriv Amichay A Levy Joseph J Finkel Uriah U Yona Gal G Greenfeld Daniel D Sheiba Shimon S Somer Jonathan J Bachmat Eitan E Rothblum Guy N GN Shalit Uri U Netzer Doron D Balicer Ran R Dagan Noa N

Nature communications 20200907 1

At the COVID-19 pandemic onset, when individual-level data of COVID-19 patients were not yet available, there was already a need for risk predictors to support prevention and treatment decisions. Here, we report a hybrid strategy to create such a predictor, combining the development of a baseline severe respiratory infection risk predictor and a post-processing method to calibrate the predictions to reported COVID-19 case-fatality rates. With the accumulation of a COVID-19 patient cohort, this p ...[more]

PMID: 32895375

Similar Datasets

Project description:Imposing stricter regulations for PM2.5 has the potential to mitigate damaging health and climate change effects. Recent evidence establishing a link between exposure to air pollution and COVID-19 outcomes is one of many arguments for the need to reduce the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5. However, many studies reporting a relationship between COVID-19 outcomes and PM2.5 have been criticized because they are based on ecological regression analyses, where area-level counts of COVID-19 outcomes are regressed on area-level exposure to air pollution and other covariates. It is well known that regression models solely based on area-level data are subject to ecological bias, i.e., they may provide a biased estimate of the association at the individual-level, due to within-area variability of the data. In this paper, we augment county-level COVID-19 mortality data with a nationally representative sample of individual-level covariate information from the American Community Survey along with high-resolution estimates of PM2.5 concentrations obtained from a validated model and aggregated to the census tract for the contiguous United States. We apply a Bayesian hierarchical modeling approach to combine county-, census tract-, and individual-level data to ultimately draw inference about individual-level associations between long-term exposure to PM2.5 and mortality for COVID-19. By analyzing data prior to the Emergency Use Authorization for the COVID-19 vaccines we found that an increase of 1 μg/m3 in long-term PM2.5 exposure, averaged over the 17-year period 2000-2016, is associated with a 3.3% (95% credible interval, 2.8 to 3.8%) increase in an individual's odds of COVID-19 mortality. Code to reproduce our study is publicly available at https://github.com/NSAPH/PM_COVID_ecoinference. The results confirm previous evidence of an association between long-term exposure to PM2.5 and COVID-19 mortality and strengthen the case for tighter regulations on harmful air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

Project description:ObjectiveTo externally validate various prognostic models and scoring rules for predicting short term mortality in patients admitted to hospital for covid-19.DesignTwo stage individual participant data meta-analysis.SettingSecondary and tertiary care.Participants46 914 patients across 18 countries, admitted to a hospital with polymerase chain reaction confirmed covid-19 from November 2019 to April 2021.Data sourcesMultiple (clustered) cohorts in Brazil, Belgium, China, Czech Republic, Egypt, France, Iran, Israel, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, and United States previously identified by a living systematic review of covid-19 prediction models published in The BMJ, and through PROSPERO, reference checking, and expert knowledge.Model selection and eligibility criteriaPrognostic models identified by the living systematic review and through contacting experts. A priori models were excluded that had a high risk of bias in the participant domain of PROBAST (prediction model study risk of bias assessment tool) or for which the applicability was deemed poor.MethodsEight prognostic models with diverse predictors were identified and validated. A two stage individual participant data meta-analysis was performed of the estimated model concordance (C) statistic, calibration slope, calibration-in-the-large, and observed to expected ratio (O:E) across the included clusters.Main outcome measures30 day mortality or in-hospital mortality.ResultsDatasets included 27 clusters from 18 different countries and contained data on 46 914patients. The pooled estimates ranged from 0.67 to 0.80 (C statistic), 0.22 to 1.22 (calibration slope), and 0.18 to 2.59 (O:E ratio) and were prone to substantial between study heterogeneity. The 4C Mortality Score by Knight et al (pooled C statistic 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.75 to 0.84, 95% prediction interval 0.72 to 0.86) and clinical model by Wang et al (0.77, 0.73 to 0.80, 0.63 to 0.87) had the highest discriminative ability. On average, 29% fewer deaths were observed than predicted by the 4C Mortality Score (pooled O:E 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 1.11, 95% prediction interval 0.21 to 2.39), 35% fewer than predicted by the Wang clinical model (0.65, 0.52 to 0.82, 0.23 to 1.89), and 4% fewer than predicted by Xie et al's model (0.96, 0.59 to 1.55, 0.21 to 4.28).ConclusionThe prognostic value of the included models varied greatly between the data sources. Although the Knight 4C Mortality Score and Wang clinical model appeared most promising, recalibration (intercept and slope updates) is needed before implementation in routine care.

Dataset Information

Developing a COVID-19 mortality risk prediction model when individual-level data are not available.

Publications

Developing a COVID-19 mortality risk prediction model when individual-level data are not available.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets