This study examined records of 2,566 consecutive COVID-19 patients at five Massachusetts hospitals and sought to predict level-of-care requirements based on clinical and laboratory data. Several classification methods were applied and compared against standard pneumonia severity scores. The need for hospitalization, ICU care, and mechanical ventilation were predicted with a validation accuracy of 88%, 87%, and 86%, respectively.ICU care and ventilation. When predictions are limited to patients with more complex disease, the accuracy of the ICU and ventilation prediction models achieved accuracy of 83% and 82%, respectively. Vital signs, age, BMI, dyspnea, and comorbidities were the most important predictors of hospitalization. Opacities on chest imaging, age, admission vital signs and symptoms, male gender, admission laboratory results, and diabetes were the most important risk factors for ICU admission and mechanical ventilation. The factors identified collectively form a signature of the novel COVID-19 disease.

No abstract

Objective To develop predictive models of COVID-19 outcomes, elucidate the influence of socioeconomic factors, and assess algorithmic racial fairness using a racially diverse patient population with high social needs. Materials and Methods Data included 7,102 patients with positive (RT-PCR) SARS-CoV-2 test at a safety-net system in Massachusetts. Linear and nonlinear classification methods were applied. A score based on a recurrent neural network and a transformer architecture was developed to capture the dynamic evolution of vital signs. Combined with patient characteristics, clinical variables, and hospital occupancy measures, this dynamic vital score was used to train predictive models. Results Hospitalizations can be predicted with an Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC) of 92% using symptoms, hospital occupancy, and patient characteristics, including social determinants of health. Parsimonious models to predict intensive care, mechanical ventilation, and mortality that used the most recent labs and vitals exhibited AUCs of 92.7%, 91.2%, and 94%, respectively. Early predictive models, using labs and vital signs closer to admission had AUCs of 81.1%, 84.9%, and 92%, respectively. Discussion The most accurate models exhibit racial bias, being more likely to falsely predict that Black patients will be hospitalized. Models that are only based on the dynamic vital score exhibited accuracies close to the best parsimonious models, although the latter also used laboratories. Conclusion This large study demonstrates that COVID-19 severity may accurately be predicted using a score that accounts for the dynamic evolution of vital signs. Further, race, social determinants of health, and hospital occupancy play an important role.

No abstract

Background Predictive models utilizing social determinants of health (SDH), demographic data, and local weather data were trained to predict missed imaging appointments (MIA) among breast imaging patients at the Boston Medical Center (BMC). Patients were characterized by many different variables, including social needs, demographics, imaging utilization, appointment features, and weather conditions on the date of the appointment. Methods This HIPAA compliant retrospective cohort study was IRB approved. Informed consent was waived. After data preprocessing steps, the dataset contained 9,970 patients and 36,606 appointments from 1/1/2015 to 12/31/2019. We identified 57 potentially impactful variables used in the initial prediction model and assessed each patient for MIA. We then developed a parsimonious model via recursive feature elimination, which identified the 25 most predictive variables. We utilized linear and non-linear models including support vector machines (SVM), logistic regression (LR), and random forest (RF) to predict MIA and compared their performance. Results The highest-performing full model is the nonlinear RF, achieving the highest Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC) of 76% and average F1 score of 85%. Models limited to the most predictive variables were able to attain AUC and F1 scores comparable to models with all variables included. The variables most predictive of missed appointments included timing, prior appointment history, referral department of origin, and socioeconomic factors such as household income and access to caregiving services. Conclusions Prediction of MIA with the data available is inherently limited by the complex, multifactorial nature of MIA. However, the algorithms presented achieved acceptable performance and demonstrated that socioeconomic factors were useful predictors of MIA. In contrast with non-modifiable demographic factors, we can address SDH to decrease the incidence of MIA.