Dynamic Prognosis Model for Predicting Survival in Severe and Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients Using Machine Learning

Abstract

Background Novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is an emerging, rapidly evolving situation. At present, the prognosis of severe and critically ill patients has become an important focus of attention. We strived to develop a prognostic prediction model for severe and critically ill COVID-19 patients.MethodsTo assess the factors associated with the prognosis of those patients, we retrospectively investigated the clinical, laboratory characteristics of confirmed 112 cases of COVID-19 admitted between 21 January to 6 March 2020 from Huangshi Central Hospital, Huangshi Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, and Daye People’s Hospital. We applied machine learning method (survival random forest) to select predictors for 28-day survival and taken into account the dynamic trajectory of laboratory indicators. Results Fifteen candidate prognostic features, including 11 baseline measures (including platelet count (PLT), urea, creatine kinase (CK), fibrinogen, creatine kinase isoenzyme activity, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), activation of partial thromboplastin time (APTT), albumin, standard deviation of erythrocyte distribution width (RBC-SD), neutrophils (%) and red blood cell count (RBC)) and 4 trajectory clusters (changes during hospitalization in the white blood cell (WBC), PLT large cell ratio (P-LCR), PLT distribution width (PDW) and AST), combined with covariates achieved 100% (95%CI: 99%-100%) AUC and reached 87% (95%CI: 84%-91%) AUC in an external validation set. Conclusions Taking advantage of random forest technique and laboratory dynamic measures, we developed a forest model to predict survival outcome of COVID-19 patients, which achieved 87% AUC in the external validation set. Our online tool will help to facilitate the early recognition of patients with high risk.

Role of red blood cell distribution width, as a prognostic indicator in COVID‐19: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…25 studies 33–57 out of 1,008 identified publications were incorporated according to the inclusion criteria (Figure 1; Table 1). 19 articles were peer‐reviewed and 6 were preprints 35–37,40,45,53 .…”

“…25 studies 33–57 out of 1,008 identified publications were incorporated according to the inclusion criteria (Figure 1; Table 1). 19 articles were peer‐reviewed and 6 were preprints 35–37,40,45,53 . While nine articles evaluated RDW on admission to assess the severity of COVID‐19 patients, others addressed RDW on admission between survivors and non‐survivors.…”