Dataset Information

The RSNA International COVID-19 Open Radiology Database (RICORD).

ABSTRACT: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a global health care emergency. Although reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction testing is the reference standard method to identify patients with COVID-19 infection, chest radiography and CT play a vital role in the detection and management of these patients. Prediction models for COVID-19 imaging are rapidly being developed to support medical decision making. However, inadequate availability of a diverse annotated data set has limited the performance and generalizability of existing models. To address this unmet need, the RSNA and Society of Thoracic Radiology collaborated to develop the RSNA International COVID-19 Open Radiology Database (RICORD). This database is the first multi-institutional, multinational, expert-annotated COVID-19 imaging data set. It is made freely available to the machine learning community as a research and educational resource for COVID-19 chest imaging. Pixel-level volumetric segmentation with clinical annotations was performed by thoracic radiology subspecialists for all COVID-19-positive thoracic CT scans. The labeling schema was coordinated with other international consensus panels and COVID-19 data annotation efforts, the European Society of Medical Imaging Informatics, the American College of Radiology, and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Study-level COVID-19 classification labels for chest radiographs were annotated by three radiologists, with majority vote adjudication by board-certified radiologists. RICORD consists of 240 thoracic CT scans and 1000 chest radiographs contributed from four international sites. It is anticipated that RICORD will ideally lead to prediction models that can demonstrate sustained performance across populations and health care systems.

SUBMITTER: Tsai EB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7993245 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveSurvey vice chairs of research from academic radiology departments on the impact of COVID-19 on research activities.MethodsThe survey asked respondents to quantify changes in research performed during the shutdown and ramp-up, relative to pre-COVID-19 levels. Respondents estimated research activity changes by overall research type (wet, instrumentation, or core facilities; prospective non-COVID-19 clinical research and computational laboratories) and then by the research activity type (data analysis, grant or manuscript writing, clinician involvement, summer student participation, and international research fellow appointments).The χ2 test was used for comparison between shutdown and ramp-up, with Yates correction when necessary.ResultsOf 105 vice chairs contacted, 46 (43.8%) responded. For 95.5%, wet, instrumentation, or core facilities research decreased to ≤50% during shutdown and for 83.3% during ramp-up (P < .0001). In addition, 89.2% and 46.5% indicated reduction to ≤25% of non-COVID-19 clinical research during shutdown and ramp-up, respectively (P < .0001). Only computational research increased to 120% during shutdown (39.5%) or ramp-up (50%) (P = .8984). For data analysis from closed laboratories, 75% and 86% showed decreased activity during shutdown and ramp-up, respectively (P = .28). Increased grant writing during shutdown and ramp-up was reported by 45.5% and 23.3% (P = .093). For 52.3% and 23.3%, manuscript writing and submission increased during shutdown and ramp-up, respectively (P < .02). Clinician research involvement trended toward relative decreases during shutdown (84.1% versus 60.5%, P = .05). There was similar drop in summer student participation (shutdown: 86.4%, ramp-up: 83.7%, P = .95) and international researcher appointment (shutdown: 85.7%, ramp-up: 86.1%; P = .96).ConclusionMany radiology research activities diminished during the COVID-19 shutdown and to a lesser extent during the ramp-up. Activities that could be done remotely, such as computational analysis and grant and manuscript writing and submission, increased.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:This survey conducted by the International Society of Radiology and supported by the European Society of Radiology aimed to collect information regarding radiology departments' current practices in the management of patients with COVID-19. METHODS:Responses from 50 radiology departments involved in the management of COVID-19 patients representing 33 countries across all continents were analyzed. The analysis revealed important variations in imaging practices related to COVID-19 across the world for different disease severity and various clinical scenarios. RESULTS:Imaging is usually not performed in asymptomatic patients (69% of institutions do not image) but is used at the end of confinement (in 60% of institutions). In the majority of institutions, chest imaging is used in suspected or confirmed patients with COVID-19 (89% and 94%). All imaging departments involved in this survey reported the use of imaging in COVID-19 patients showing severe symptoms or who were critically ill. However, there is a wide variation in imaging modality type used for each clinical scenario. The use of imaging is applied in line with existing guidelines and recommendations in 98% of institutions with structured reporting recorded in 58% of institutions. The vast majority of institutions reported a significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the imaging department's routine activity (83%). CONCLUSION:We believe that the results of this survey will help to understand current heterogeneities in radiology practice and to identify needs and gaps in the organization and function of radiology departments worldwide in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of this survey may inform the development of an overall strategy for radiology department organization and imaging protocols in pandemic conditions. KEY POINTS:• The results of this survey, which included responses from 50 radiology departments representing 33 countries, showed important variations in imaging practices related to COVID-19 across the world. • While imaging is usually not performed in asymptomatic patients (69% of institutions), it is used in suspected or confirmed patients with COVID-19, in COVID-19 patients showing severe symptoms or who were critically ill, and at the end of confinement (89%, 94%, 100%, 100%, 60% of institutions, respectively). However, there is a wide variation in imaging modality type used for each clinical scenario. • In 98% of institutions, the use of imaging is applied in line with existing guidelines and recommendations, with structured reporting recorded in 58% of institutions. COVID-19 pandemic made a significant impact on the imaging department's routine activity in 83% of institutions.

Project description:BackgroundAngiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have been postulated to affect susceptibility to COVID-19. Observational studies so far have lacked rigorous ascertainment adjustment and international generalisability. We aimed to determine whether use of ACEIs or ARBs is associated with an increased susceptibility to COVID-19 in patients with hypertension.MethodsIn this international, open science, cohort analysis, we used electronic health records from Spain (Information Systems for Research in Primary Care [SIDIAP]) and the USA (Columbia University Irving Medical Center data warehouse [CUIMC] and Department of Veterans Affairs Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership [VA-OMOP]) to identify patients aged 18 years or older with at least one prescription for ACEIs and ARBs (target cohort) or calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics (THZs; comparator cohort) between Nov 1, 2019, and Jan 31, 2020. Users were defined separately as receiving either monotherapy with these four drug classes, or monotherapy or combination therapy (combination use) with other antihypertensive medications. We assessed four outcomes: COVID-19 diagnosis; hospital admission with COVID-19; hospital admission with pneumonia; and hospital admission with pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury, or sepsis. We built large-scale propensity score methods derived through a data-driven approach and negative control experiments across ten pairwise comparisons, with results meta-analysed to generate 1280 study effects. For each study effect, we did negative control outcome experiments using a possible 123 controls identified through a data-rich algorithm. This process used a set of predefined baseline patient characteristics to provide the most accurate prediction of treatment and balance among patient cohorts across characteristics. The study is registered with the EU Post-Authorisation Studies register, EUPAS35296.FindingsAmong 1 355 349 antihypertensive users (363 785 ACEI or ARB monotherapy users, 248 915 CCB or THZ monotherapy users, 711 799 ACEI or ARB combination users, and 473 076 CCB or THZ combination users) included in analyses, no association was observed between COVID-19 diagnosis and exposure to ACEI or ARB monotherapy versus CCB or THZ monotherapy (calibrated hazard ratio [HR] 0·98, 95% CI 0·84-1·14) or combination use exposure (1·01, 0·90-1·15). ACEIs alone similarly showed no relative risk difference when compared with CCB or THZ monotherapy (HR 0·91, 95% CI 0·68-1·21; with heterogeneity of >40%) or combination use (0·95, 0·83-1·07). Directly comparing ACEIs with ARBs demonstrated a moderately lower risk with ACEIs, which was significant with combination use (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·79-0·99) and non-significant for monotherapy (0·85, 0·69-1·05). We observed no significant difference between drug classes for risk of hospital admission with COVID-19, hospital admission with pneumonia, or hospital admission with pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury, or sepsis across all comparisons.InterpretationNo clinically significant increased risk of COVID-19 diagnosis or hospital admission-related outcomes associated with ACEI or ARB use was observed, suggesting users should not discontinue or change their treatment to decrease their risk of COVID-19.FundingWellcome Trust, UK National Institute for Health Research, US National Institutes of Health, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Janssen Research & Development, IQVIA, South Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare Republic, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, and European Health Data and Evidence Network.

Project description:Two messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna are being rolled out. Despite the high volume of emerging evidence regarding adverse events (AEs) associated with the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, previous studies have thus far been largely based on the comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated control, possibly highlighting the AE risks with COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. Comparing the safety profile of mRNA vaccinated individuals with otherwise vaccinated individuals would enable a more relevant assessment for the safety of mRNA vaccination. We designed a comparative safety study between 18 755 and 27 895 individuals who reported to VigiBase for adverse events following immunization (AEFI) with mRNA COVID-19 and influenza vaccines, respectively, from January 1, 2020, to January 17, 2021. We employed disproportionality analysis to rapidly detect relevant safety signals and compared comparative risks of a diverse span of AEFIs for the vaccines. The safety profile of novel mRNA vaccines was divergent from that of influenza vaccines. The overall pattern suggested that systematic reactions like chill, myalgia, fatigue were more noticeable with the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, while injection site reactogenicity events were more prevalent with the influenza vaccine. Compared to the influenza vaccine, mRNA COVID-19 vaccines demonstrated a significantly higher risk for a few manageable cardiovascular complications, such as hypertensive crisis (adjusted reporting odds ratio [ROR], 12.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.47-65.54), and supraventricular tachycardia (adjusted ROR, 7.94; 95% CI, 2.62-24.00), but lower risk of neurological complications such as syncope, neuralgia, loss of consciousness, Guillain-Barre syndrome, gait disturbance, visual impairment, and dyskinesia. This study has not identified significant safety concerns regarding mRNA vaccination in real-world settings. The overall safety profile patterned a lower risk of serious AEFI following mRNA vaccines compared to influenza vaccines.

Dataset Information

The RSNA International COVID-19 Open Radiology Database (RICORD).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets