Development and Validation of a Prognostic Nomogram Based on Clinical and CT Features for Adverse Outcome Prediction in Patients with COVID-19

The hypoxia-age-shock index at triage to predict the outcomes of Covid-19 patients

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has caused a severe burden on medical professionals, as the rapid disposition of patients is important. Therefore, we aimed to develop a new clinical assessment tool based on the shock index (SI) and age-shock index (ASI). We proposed the hypoxia-age-shock index (HASI) and determined the usability of triage for COVID-19 infected patients in the first scene.

METHODS

The predictive power for three indexes on mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and endotracheal intubation rate was evaluated using the receiver operating curve (ROC). We used DeLong's method for comparing the ROCs.

RESULTS

The area under the curve (AUC) for ROC on mortality for SI, ASI, and HASI were 0.546, 0.771, and 0.773, respectively. The AUC on ICU admission mortality for SI, ASI, and HASI were 0.581, 0.700, and 0.743, respectively. The AUC for intubation for SI, ASI, and HASI were 0.592, 0.708, and 0.757, respectively. The AUC differences between HASI and SI showed statistically significant (P = 0.001) results on mortality, ICU admission, and intubation. Additionally, statistically significant results were found for the AUC difference between the HASI and ASI on ICU admission and intubation (P = 0.001 and P = 0.004, respectively).

CONCLUSION

HASI can provide a better prediction compared to ASI on ICU admission and endotracheal intubation. HASI was more sensitive in mortality, ICU admission, and intubation prediction than the ASI.

Enhancing physicians' radiology diagnostics of COVID-19's effects on lung health by leveraging artificial intelligence

Introduction: This study aimed to develop an individualized artificial intelligence model to help radiologists assess the severity of COVID-19's effects on patients' lung health. Methods: Data was collected from medical records of 1103 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 using RT- qPCR between March and June 2020, in Hospital Madrid-Group (HM-Group, Spain). By using Convolutional Neural Networks, we determine the effects of COVID-19 in terms of lung area, opacities, and pulmonary air density. We then combine these variables with age and sex in a regression model to assess the severity of these conditions with respect to fatality risk (death or ICU). Results: Our model can predict high effect with an AUC of 0.736. Finally, we compare the performance of the model with respect to six physicians' diagnosis, and test for improvements on physicians' performance when using the prediction algorithm. Discussion: We find that the algorithm outperforms physicians (39.5% less error), and thus, physicians can significantly benefit from the information provided by the algorithm by reducing error by almost 30%.

Developing and Validating Multi-Modal Models for Mortality Prediction in COVID-19 Patients: a Multi-center Retrospective Study

The unprecedented global crisis brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic has sparked numerous efforts to create predictive models for the detection and prognostication of SARS-CoV-2 infections with the goal of helping health systems allocate resources. Machine learning models, in particular, hold promise for their ability to leverage patient clinical information and medical images for prediction. However, most of the published COVID-19 prediction models thus far have little clinical utility due to methodological flaws and lack of appropriate validation. In this paper, we describe our methodology to develop and validate multi-modal models for COVID-19 mortality prediction using multi-center patient data. The models for COVID-19 mortality prediction were developed using retrospective data from Madrid, Spain (N = 2547) and were externally validated in patient cohorts from a community hospital in New Jersey, USA (N = 242) and an academic center in Seoul, Republic of Korea (N = 336). The models we developed performed differently across various clinical settings, underscoring the need for a guided strategy when employing machine learning for clinical decision-making. We demonstrated that using features from both the structured electronic health records and chest X-ray imaging data resulted in better 30-day mortality prediction performance across all three datasets (areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves: 0.85 (95% confidence interval: 0.83-0.87), 0.76 (0.70-0.82), and 0.95 (0.92-0.98)). We discuss the rationale for the decisions made at every step in developing the models and have made our code available to the research community. We employed the best machine learning practices for clinical model development. Our goal is to create a toolkit that would assist investigators and organizations in building multi-modal models for prediction, classification, and/or optimization.

Developing medical imaging AI for emerging infectious diseases

Very few of the COVID-19 ML models were fit for deployment in real-world settings. In this Comment, Huang et al. discuss the main steps required to develop clinically useful models in the context of an emerging infectious disease.

Quantitative chest computed tomography combined with plasma cytokines predict outcomes in COVID-19 patients

Despite extraordinary international efforts to dampen the spread and understand the mechanisms behind SARS-CoV-2 infections, accessible predictive biomarkers directly applicable in the clinic are yet to be discovered. Recent studies have revealed that diverse types of assays bear limited predictive power for COVID-19 outcomes. Here, we harness the predictive power of chest computed tomography (CT) in combination with plasma cytokines using a machine learning and k-fold cross-validation approach for predicting death during hospitalization and maximum severity degree in COVID-19 patients. Patients (n = 152) from the Mount Sinai Health System in New York with plasma cytokine assessment and a chest CT within five days from admission were included. Demographics, clinical, and laboratory variables, including plasma cytokines (IL-6, IL-8, and TNF-α), were collected from the electronic medical record. We found that CT quantitative alone was better at predicting severity (AUC 0.81) than death (AUC 0.70), while cytokine measurements alone better-predicted death (AUC 0.70) compared to severity (AUC 0.66). When combined, chest CT and plasma cytokines were good predictors of death (AUC 0.78) and maximum severity (AUC 0.82). Finally, we provide a simple scoring system (nomogram) using plasma IL-6, IL-8, TNF-α, ground-glass opacities (GGO) to aerated lung ratio and age as new metrics that may be used to monitor patients upon hospitalization and help physicians make critical decisions and considerations for patients at high risk of death for COVID-19.

Combined Model of Quantitative Evaluation of Chest Computed Tomography and Laboratory Values for Assessing the Prognosis of Coronavirus Disease 2019

PURPOSE

 To assess the prognostic power of quantitative analysis of chest CT, laboratory values, and their combination in COVID-19 pneumonia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 Retrospective analysis of patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia and chest CT performed between March 07 and November 13, 2020. Volume and percentage (PO) of lung opacifications and mean HU of the whole lung were quantified using prototype software. 13 laboratory values were collected. Negative outcome was defined as death, ICU admittance, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Positive outcome was defined as care in the regular ward or discharge. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate the prognostic value of CT parameters and laboratory values. Independent predictors were combined to establish a scoring system for prediction of prognosis. This score was validated on a separate validation cohort.

RESULTS

 89 patients were included for model development between March 07 and April 27, 2020 (mean age: 60.3 years). 38 patients experienced a negative outcome. In univariate regression analysis, all quantitative CT parameters as well as C-reactive protein (CRP), relative lymphocyte count (RLC), troponin, and LDH were associated with a negative outcome. In a multivariate regression analysis, PO, CRP, and RLC were independent predictors of a negative outcome. Combination of these three values showed a strong predictive value with a C-index of 0.87. A scoring system was established which categorized patients into 4 groups with a risk of 7 %, 30 %, 67 %, or 100 % for a negative outcome. The validation cohort consisted of 28 patients between May 5 and November 13, 2020. A negative outcome occurred in 6 % of patients with a score of 0, 50 % with a score of 1, and 100 % with a score of 2 or 3.

CONCLUSION

 The combination of PO, CRP, and RLC showed a high predictive value for a negative outcome. A 4-point scoring system based on these findings allows easy risk stratification in the clinical routine and performed exceptionally in the validation cohort.

KEY POINTS

  · A high PO is associated with an unfavorable outcome in COVID-19. · PO, CRP, and RLC are independent predictors of an unfavorable outcome, and their combination has strong predictive power. · A 4-point scoring system based on these values allows quick risk stratification in a clinical setting.

CITATION FORMAT

· Scharf G, Meiler S, Zeman F et al. Combined Model of Quantitative Evaluation of Chest Computed Tomography and Laboratory Values for Assessing the Prognosis of Coronavirus Disease 2019. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2022; DOI: 10.1055/a-1731-7905.

[Korean Clinical Imaging Guidelines for Justification of Diagnostic Imaging Study for COVID-19]

To develop Korean coronavirus disease (COVID-19) chest imaging justification guidelines, eight key questions were selected and the following recommendations were made with the evidence-based clinical imaging guideline adaptation methodology. It is appropriate not to use chest imaging tests (chest radiograph or CT) for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in asymptomatic patients. If reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction testing is not available or if results are delayed or are initially negative in the presence of symptoms suggestive of COVID-19, chest imaging tests may be considered. In addition to clinical evaluations and laboratory tests, chest imaging may be contemplated to determine hospital admission for asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic unhospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19. In hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19, chest imaging may be advised to determine or modify treatment alternatives. CT angiography may be considered if hemoptysis or pulmonary embolism is clinically suspected in a patient with confirmed COVID-19. For COVID-19 patients with improved symptoms, chest imaging is not recommended to make decisions regarding hospital discharge. For patients with functional impairment after recovery from COVID-19, chest imaging may be considered to distinguish a potentially treatable disease.

Prediction models for severe manifestations and mortality due to COVID-19: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Throughout 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a threat to public health on national and global level. There has been an immediate need for research to understand the clinical signs and symptoms of COVID-19 that can help predict deterioration including mechanical ventilation, organ support, and death. Studies thus far have addressed the epidemiology of the disease, common presentations, and susceptibility to acquisition and transmission of the virus; however, an accurate prognostic model for severe manifestations of COVID-19 is still needed because of the limited healthcare resources available.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to evaluate published reports of prediction models for severe illnesses caused COVID-19.

METHODS

Searches were developed by the primary author and a medical librarian using an iterative process of gathering and evaluating terms. Comprehensive strategies, including both index and keyword methods, were devised for PubMed and EMBASE. The data of confirmed COVID-19 patients from randomized control studies, cohort studies, and case-control studies published between January 2020 and May 2021 were retrieved. Studies were independently assessed for risk of bias and applicability using the Prediction Model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). We collected study type, setting, sample size, type of validation, and outcome including intubation, ventilation, any other type of organ support, or death. The combination of the prediction model, scoring system, performance of predictive models, and geographic locations were summarized.

RESULTS

A primary review found 445 articles relevant based on title and abstract. After further review, 366 were excluded based on the defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Seventy-nine articles were included in the qualitative analysis. Inter observer agreement on inclusion 0.84 (95%CI 0.78-0.89). When the PROBAST tool was applied, 70 of the 79 articles were identified to have high or unclear risk of bias, or high or unclear concern for applicability. Nine studies reported prediction models that were rated as low risk of bias and low concerns for applicability.

CONCLUSION

Several prognostic models for COVID-19 were identified, with varying clinical score performance. Nine studies that had a low risk of bias and low concern for applicability, one from a general public population and hospital setting. The most promising and well-validated scores include Clift et al.,¹⁵ and Knight et al.,¹⁸ which seem to have accurate prediction models that clinicians can use in the public health and emergency department setting.

Quantitative chest CT combined with plasma cytokines predict outcomes in COVID-19 patients.. [PMID: 34671777 PMCID: PMC8528085 DOI: 10.1101/2021.10.11.21264709]

Despite extraordinary international efforts to dampen the spread and understand the mechanisms behind SARS-CoV-2 infections, accessible predictive biomarkers directly applicable in the clinic are yet to be discovered. Recent studies have revealed that diverse types of assays bear limited predictive power for COVID-19 outcomes. Here, we harness the predictive power of chest CT in combination with plasma cytokines using a machine learning approach for predicting death during hospitalization and maximum severity degree in COVID-19 patients. Patients (n=152) from the Mount Sinai Health System in New York with plasma cytokine assessment and a chest CT within 5 days from admission were included. Demographics, clinical, and laboratory variables, including plasma cytokines (IL-6, IL-8, and TNF-α) were collected from the electronic medical record. We found that chest CT combined with plasma cytokines were good predictors of death (AUC 0.78) and maximum severity (AUC 0.82), whereas CT quantitative was better at predicting severity (AUC 0.81 vs 0.70) while cytokine measurements better predicted death (AUC 0.70 vs 0.66). Finally, we provide a simple scoring system using plasma IL-6, IL-8, TNF-α, GGO to aerated lung ratio and age as novel metrics that may be used to monitor patients upon hospitalization and help physicians make critical decisions and considerations for patients at high risk of death for COVID-19.

Longitudinal Radiological Findings in Patients With COVID-19 With Different Severities: From Onset to Long-Term Follow-Up After Discharge

Objective: This study aimed to investigate the evolution of radiological findings in the patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia with different severities from onset to 1-year follow-up and identify the predictive factors for different pulmonary lesion absorption status in the patients infected with COVID-19.

Methods: A retrospective study was performed on the clinical and radiological features of 175 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia hospitalized at three institutions from January 21 to March 20, 2020. All the chest CT scans during hospitalization and follow-ups after discharge were collected. The clinical and radiological features from the chest CT scans both at the peak stage and before discharge from the hospital were used to predict whether the pulmonary lesions would be fully absorbed after discharge by Cox regression. Then, these patients were stratified into two groups with different risks of pulmonary lesion absorption, and an optimal timepoint for the first CT follow-up was selected accordingly.

Results: A total of 132 (75.4%) patients were classified into the non-severe group, and 43 (24.6%) patients were classified into the severe group, according to the WHO guidelines. The opacification in both the groups changed from ground-glass opacity (GGO) to consolidation and then from consolidation to GGO. Among the 175 participants, 135 (112 non-severe and 23 severe patients with COVID-19) underwent follow-up CT scans after discharge. Pulmonary residuals could be observed in nearly half of the patients (67/135) with the presentation of opacities and parenchymal bands. The parenchymal bands in nine discharged patients got fully absorbed during the follow-up periods. The age of patient [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.95, 95% CI, 0.95–0.99], level of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) (HR = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.99–1.00), level of procalcitonin (HR = 8.72; 95% CI, 1.04–73.03), existence of diffuse lesions (HR = 0.28; 95% CI, 0.09–0.92), subpleural distribution of lesions (HR = 2.15; 95% CI, 1.17–3.92), morphology of residuals (linear lesion: HR = 4.58, 95% CI, 1.22–17.11; nodular lesion: HR = 33.07, 95% CI, 3.58–305.74), and pleural traction (HR = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22–0.78) from the last scan before discharge were independent factors to predict the absorption status of COVID-19-related pulmonary abnormalities after discharge. According to a Kaplan–Meier analysis, the probability of patients of the low-risk group to have pulmonary lesions fully absorbed within 90 days reached 91.7%.

Conclusion: The development of COVID-19 lesions followed the trend from GGO to consolidation and then from consolidation to GGO. The CT manifestations and clinical and laboratory variables before discharge could help predict the absorption status of pulmonary lesions after discharge. The parenchymal bands could be fully absorbed in some COVID-19 cases. In this study, a Cox regression analysis indicated that a timepoint of 3 months since onset was optimal for the radiological follow-up of discharged patients.

Blood Urea Nitrogen to Serum Albumin Ratio (BAR) Predicts Critical Illness in Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Purpose

We sought to explore the prognostic value of blood urea nitrogen (BUN) to serum albumin ratio (BAR) and further develop a prediction model for critical illness in COVID-19 patients.

Patients and Methods

This was a retrospective, multicenter, observational study on adult hospitalized COVID-19 patients from three provinces in China between January 14 and March 9, 2020. Primary outcome was critical illness, including admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), or death. Clinical data were collected within 24 hours after admission to hospitals. The predictive performance of BAR was tested by multivariate logistic regression analysis and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and then a nomogram was developed.

Results

A total of 1370 patients with COVID-19 were included and 113 (8.2%) patients eventually developed critical illness in the study. Baseline age (OR: 1.031, 95% CI: 1.014, 1.049), respiratory rate (OR: 1.063, 95% CI: 1.009, 1.120), unconsciousness (OR: 40.078, 95% CI: 5.992, 268.061), lymphocyte counts (OR: 0.352, 95% CI: 0.204, 0.607), total bilirubin (OR: 1.030, 95% CI: 1.001, 1.060) and BAR (OR: 1.319, 95% CI: 1.183, 1.471) were independent risk factors for critical illness. The predictive AUC of BAR was 0.821 (95% CI: 0.784, 0.858; P<0.01) and the optimal cut-off value of BAR was 3.7887 mg/g (sensitivity: 0.690, specificity: 0.786; positive predictive value: 0.225, negative predictive value: 0.966; positive likelihood ratio: 3.226, negative likelihood ratio: 0.394). The C index of nomogram including above six predictors was 0.9031125 (95% CI: 0.8720542, 0.9341708).

Conclusion

Elevated BAR at admission is an independent risk factor for critical illness of COVID-19. The novel predictive nomogram including BAR has superior predictive performance.

Automated CT Lung Density Analysis of Viral Pneumonia and Healthy Lungs Using Deep Learning-Based Segmentation, Histograms and HU Thresholds

CT patterns of viral pneumonia are usually only qualitatively described in radiology reports. Artificial intelligence enables automated and reliable segmentation of lungs with chest CT. Based on this, the purpose of this study was to derive meaningful imaging biomarkers reflecting CT patterns of viral pneumonia and assess their potential to discriminate between healthy lungs and lungs with viral pneumonia. This study used non-enhanced and CT pulmonary angiograms (CTPAs) of healthy lungs and viral pneumonia (SARS-CoV-2, influenza A/B) identified by radiology reports and RT-PCR results. After deep learning segmentation of the lungs, histogram-based and threshold-based analyses of lung attenuation were performed and compared. The derived imaging biomarkers were correlated with parameters of clinical and biochemical severity (modified WHO severity scale; c-reactive protein). For non-enhanced CTs (n = 526), all imaging biomarkers significantly differed between healthy lungs and lungs with viral pneumonia (all p < 0.001), a finding that was not reproduced for CTPAs (n = 504). Standard deviation (histogram-derived) and relative high attenuation area [600-0 HU] (HU-thresholding) differed most. The strongest correlation with disease severity was found for absolute high attenuation area [600-0 HU] (r = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.46-0.64). Deep-learning segmentation-based histogram and HU threshold analysis could be deployed in chest CT evaluation for the differentiating of healthy lungs from AP lungs.

Common pitfalls and recommendations for using machine learning to detect and prognosticate for COVID-19 using chest radiographs and CT scans

Machine learning methods offer great promise for fast and accurate detection and prognostication of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) from standard-of-care chest radiographs (CXR) and chest computed tomography (CT) images. Many articles have been published in 2020 describing new machine learning-based models for both of these tasks, but it is unclear which are of potential clinical utility. In this systematic review, we consider all published papers and preprints, for the period from 1 January 2020 to 3 October 2020, which describe new machine learning models for the diagnosis or prognosis of COVID-19 from CXR or CT images. All manuscripts uploaded to bioRxiv, medRxiv and arXiv along with all entries in EMBASE and MEDLINE in this timeframe are considered. Our search identified 2,212 studies, of which 415 were included after initial screening and, after quality screening, 62 studies were included in this systematic review. Our review finds that none of the models identified are of potential clinical use due to methodological flaws and/or underlying biases. This is a major weakness, given the urgency with which validated COVID-19 models are needed. To address this, we give many recommendations which, if followed, will solve these issues and lead to higher-quality model development and well-documented manuscripts.

Machine Learning-Based Prediction of COVID-19 Severity and Progression to Critical Illness Using CT Imaging and Clinical Data

Objective

To develop a machine learning (ML) pipeline based on radiomics to predict Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity and the future deterioration to critical illness using CT and clinical variables.

Materials and Methods

Clinical data were collected from 981 patients from a multi-institutional international cohort with real-time polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19. Radiomics features were extracted from chest CT of the patients. The data of the cohort were randomly divided into training, validation, and test sets using a 7:1:2 ratio. A ML pipeline consisting of a model to predict severity and time-to-event model to predict progression to critical illness were trained on radiomics features and clinical variables. The receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (ROC-AUC), concordance index (C-index), and time-dependent ROC-AUC were calculated to determine model performance, which was compared with consensus CT severity scores obtained by visual interpretation by radiologists.

Results

Among 981 patients with confirmed COVID-19, 274 patients developed critical illness. Radiomics features and clinical variables resulted in the best performance for the prediction of disease severity with a highest test ROC-AUC of 0.76 compared with 0.70 (0.76 vs. 0.70, p = 0.023) for visual CT severity score and clinical variables. The progression prediction model achieved a test C-index of 0.868 when it was based on the combination of CT radiomics and clinical variables compared with 0.767 when based on CT radiomics features alone (p < 0.001), 0.847 when based on clinical variables alone (p = 0.110), and 0.860 when based on the combination of visual CT severity scores and clinical variables (p = 0.549). Furthermore, the model based on the combination of CT radiomics and clinical variables achieved time-dependent ROC-AUCs of 0.897, 0.933, and 0.927 for the prediction of progression risks at 3, 5 and 7 days, respectively.

Conclusion

CT radiomics features combined with clinical variables were predictive of COVID-19 severity and progression to critical illness with fairly high accuracy.

Prediction of Patient Management in COVID-19 Using Deep Learning-Based Fully Automated Extraction of Cardiothoracic CT Metrics and Laboratory Findings

Objective

To extract pulmonary and cardiovascular metrics from chest CTs of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using a fully automated deep learning-based approach and assess their potential to predict patient management.

Materials and Methods

All initial chest CTs of patients who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 at our emergency department between March 25 and April 25, 2020, were identified (n = 120). Three patient management groups were defined: group 1 (outpatient), group 2 (general ward), and group 3 (intensive care unit [ICU]). Multiple pulmonary and cardiovascular metrics were extracted from the chest CT images using deep learning. Additionally, six laboratory findings indicating inflammation and cellular damage were considered. Differences in CT metrics, laboratory findings, and demographics between the patient management groups were assessed. The potential of these parameters to predict patients' needs for intensive care (yes/no) was analyzed using logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic curves. Internal and external validity were assessed using 109 independent chest CT scans.

Results

While demographic parameters alone (sex and age) were not sufficient to predict ICU management status, both CT metrics alone (including both pulmonary and cardiovascular metrics; area under the curve [AUC] = 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.79–0.97) and laboratory findings alone (C-reactive protein, lactate dehydrogenase, white blood cell count, and albumin; AUC = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.77–0.94) were good classifiers. Excellent performance was achieved by a combination of demographic parameters, CT metrics, and laboratory findings (AUC = 0.91; 95% CI = 0.85–0.98). Application of a model that combined both pulmonary CT metrics and demographic parameters on a dataset from another hospital indicated its external validity (AUC = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.66–0.88).

Conclusion

Chest CT of patients with COVID-19 contains valuable information that can be accessed using automated image analysis. These metrics are useful for the prediction of patient management.

CANPT Score: A Tool to Predict Severe COVID-19 on Admission

Background and Aims: Patients with critical coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have a mortality rate higher than 50%. The purpose of this study was to establish a model for the prediction of the risk of severe disease and/or death in patients with COVID-19 on admission.

Materials and Methods: Patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in four hospitals in China from January 22, 2020 to April 15, 2020 were retrospectively enrolled. The demographic, laboratory, and clinical data of the patients with COVID-19 were collected. The independent risk factors related to the severity of and death due to COVID-19 were identified with a multivariate logistic regression; a nomogram and prediction model were established. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and predictive accuracy were used to evaluate the model's effectiveness.

Results: In total, 582 patients with COVID-19, including 116 patients with severe disease, were enrolled. Their comorbidities, body temperature, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet (PLT) count, and levels of total bilirubin (Tbil), creatinine (Cr), creatine kinase (CK), and albumin (Alb) were independent risk factors for severe disease. A nomogram was generated based on these eight variables with a predictive accuracy of 85.9% and an AUROC of 0.858 (95% CI, 0.823–0.893). Based on the nomogram, the CANPT score was established with cut-off values of 12 and 16. The percentages of patients with severe disease in the groups with CANPT scores <12, ≥12, and <16, and ≥16 were 4.15, 27.43, and 69.64%, respectively. Seventeen patients died. NLR, Cr, CK, and Alb were independent risk factors for mortality, and the CAN score was established to predict mortality. With a cut-off value of 15, the predictive accuracy was 97.4%, and the AUROC was 0.903 (95% CI 0.832, 0.974).

Conclusions: The CANPT and CAN scores can predict the risk of severe disease and mortality in COVID-19 patients on admission.

CANPT Score: A Tool to Predict Severe COVID-19 on Admission

Background and Aims: Patients with critical coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have a mortality rate higher than 50%. The purpose of this study was to establish a model for the prediction of the risk of severe disease and/or death in patients with COVID-19 on admission. Materials and Methods: Patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in four hospitals in China from January 22, 2020 to April 15, 2020 were retrospectively enrolled. The demographic, laboratory, and clinical data of the patients with COVID-19 were collected. The independent risk factors related to the severity of and death due to COVID-19 were identified with a multivariate logistic regression; a nomogram and prediction model were established. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and predictive accuracy were used to evaluate the model's effectiveness. Results: In total, 582 patients with COVID-19, including 116 patients with severe disease, were enrolled. Their comorbidities, body temperature, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet (PLT) count, and levels of total bilirubin (Tbil), creatinine (Cr), creatine kinase (CK), and albumin (Alb) were independent risk factors for severe disease. A nomogram was generated based on these eight variables with a predictive accuracy of 85.9% and an AUROC of 0.858 (95% CI, 0.823-0.893). Based on the nomogram, the CANPT score was established with cut-off values of 12 and 16. The percentages of patients with severe disease in the groups with CANPT scores <12, ≥12, and <16, and ≥16 were 4.15, 27.43, and 69.64%, respectively. Seventeen patients died. NLR, Cr, CK, and Alb were independent risk factors for mortality, and the CAN score was established to predict mortality. With a cut-off value of 15, the predictive accuracy was 97.4%, and the AUROC was 0.903 (95% CI 0.832, 0.974). Conclusions: The CANPT and CAN scores can predict the risk of severe disease and mortality in COVID-19 patients on admission.

An Automatic Approach for Individual HU-Based Characterization of Lungs in COVID-19 Patients

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic currently involves millions of people worldwide. Radiology plays an important role in the diagnosis and management of patients, and chest computed tomography (CT) is the most widely used imaging modality. An automatic method to characterize the lungs of COVID-19 patients based on individually optimized Hounsfield unit (HU) thresholds was developed and implemented. Lungs were considered as composed of three components—aerated, intermediate, and consolidated. Three methods based on analytic fit (Gaussian) and maximum gradient search (using polynomial and original data fits) were implemented. The methods were applied to a population of 166 patients scanned during the first wave of the pandemic. Preliminarily, the impact of the inter-scanner variability of the HU-density calibration curve was investigated. Results showed that inter-scanner variability was negligible. The median values of individual thresholds th1 (between aerated and intermediate components) were −768, −780, and −798 HU for the three methods, respectively. A significantly lower median value for th2 (between intermediate and consolidated components) was found for the maximum gradient on the data (−34 HU) compared to the other two methods (−114 and −87 HU). The maximum gradient on the data method was applied to quantify the three components in our population—the aerated, intermediate, and consolidation components showed median values of 793 ± 499 cc, 914 ± 291 cc, and 126 ± 111 cc, respectively, while the median value of the first peak was −853 ± 56 HU.

Predictors of COVID-19 severity: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The unpredictability of the progression of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may be attributed to the low precision of the tools used to predict the prognosis of this disease. Objective: To identify the predictors associated with poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Methods: Relevant articles from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science were searched as of April 5, 2020. The quality of the included papers was appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). Data of interest were collected and evaluated for their compatibility for the meta-analysis. Cumulative calculations to determine the correlation and effect estimates were performed using the Z test. Results: In total, 19 papers recording 1,934 mild and 1,644 severe cases of COVID-19 were included. Based on the initial evaluation, 62 potential risk factors were identified for the meta-analysis. Several comorbidities, including chronic respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension were observed more frequent among patients with severe COVID-19 than with the mild ones. Compared to the mild form, severe COVID-19 was associated with symptoms such as dyspnea, anorexia, fatigue, increased respiratory rate, and high systolic blood pressure. Lower levels of lymphocytes and hemoglobin; elevated levels of leukocytes, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, blood creatinine, blood urea nitrogen, high-sensitivity troponin, creatine kinase, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, interleukin 6, D-dimer, ferritin, lactate dehydrogenase, and procalcitonin; and a high erythrocyte sedimentation rate were also associated with severe COVID-19. Conclusion: More than 30 risk factors are associated with a higher risk of severe COVID-19. These may serve as useful baseline parameters in the development of prediction tools for COVID-19 prognosis.

Predictors of COVID-19 severity: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The unpredictability of the progression of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may be attributed to the low precision of the tools used to predict the prognosis of this disease. Objective: To identify the predictors associated with poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Methods: Relevant articles from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science were searched and extracted as of April 5, 2020. Data of interest were collected and evaluated for their compatibility for the meta-analysis. Cumulative calculations to determine the correlation and effect estimates were performed using the Z test. Results: In total, 19 papers recording 1,934 mild and 1,644 severe cases of COVID-19 were included. Based on the initial evaluation, 62 potential risk factors were identified for the meta-analysis. Several comorbidities, including chronic respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension were observed more frequent among patients with severe COVID-19 than with the mild ones. Compared to the mild form, severe COVID-19 was associated with symptoms such as dyspnea, anorexia, fatigue, increased respiratory rate, and high systolic blood pressure. Lower levels of lymphocytes and hemoglobin; elevated levels of leukocytes, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, blood creatinine, blood urea nitrogen, high-sensitivity troponin, creatine kinase, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, interleukin 6, D-dimer, ferritin, lactate dehydrogenase, and procalcitonin; and a high erythrocyte sedimentation rate were also associated with severe COVID-19. Conclusion: More than 30 risk factors are associated with a higher risk of severe COVID-19. These may serve as useful baseline parameters in the development of prediction tools for COVID-19 prognosis.

Cerebral Micro-Structural Changes in COVID-19 Patients - An MRI-based 3-month Follow-up Study

BACKGROUND

Increasing evidence supported the possible neuro-invasion potential of SARS-CoV-2. However, no studies were conducted to explore the existence of the micro-structural changes in the central nervous system after infection. We aimed to identify the existence of potential brain micro-structural changes related to SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

In this prospective study, diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and 3D high-resolution T1WI sequences were acquired in 60 recovered COVID-19 patients (56.67% male; age: 44.10 ± 16.00) and 39 age- and sex-matched non-COVID-19 controls (56.41% male; age: 45.88 ± 13.90). Registered fractional anisotropy (FA), mean diffusivity (MD), axial diffusivity (AD), and radial diffusivity (RD) were quantified for DTI, and an index score system was introduced. Regional volumes derived from Voxel-based Morphometry (VBM) and DTI metrics were compared using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Two sample t-test and Spearman correlation were conducted to assess the relationships among imaging indices, index scores and clinical information.

FINDINGS

In this follow-up stage, neurological symptoms were presented in 55% COVID-19 patients. COVID-19 patients had statistically significantly higher bilateral gray matter volumes (GMV) in olfactory cortices, hippocampi, insulas, left Rolandic operculum, left Heschl's gyrus and right cingulate gyrus and a general decline of MD, AD, RD accompanied with an increase of FA in white matter, especially AD in the right CR, EC and SFF, and MD in SFF compared with non-COVID-19 volunteers (corrected p value <0.05). Global GMV, GMVs in left Rolandic operculum, right cingulate, bilateral hippocampi, left Heschl's gyrus, and Global MD of WM were found to correlate with memory loss (p value <0.05). GMVs in the right cingulate gyrus and left hippocampus were related to smell loss (p value <0.05). MD-GM score, global GMV, and GMV in right cingulate gyrus were correlated with LDH level (p value <0.05).

INTERPRETATION

Study findings revealed possible disruption to micro-structural and functional brain integrity in the recovery stages of COVID-19, suggesting the long-term consequences of SARS-CoV-2.

FUNDING

Shanghai Natural Science Foundation, Youth Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China, Shanghai Sailing Program, Shanghai Science and Technology Development, Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project and ZJ Lab.

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

OBJECTIVE

To review and appraise the validity and usefulness of published and preprint reports of prediction models for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in patients with suspected infection, for prognosis of patients with covid-19, and for detecting people in the general population at increased risk of covid-19 infection or being admitted to hospital with the disease.

DESIGN

Living systematic review and critical appraisal by the COVID-PRECISE (Precise Risk Estimation to optimise covid-19 Care for Infected or Suspected patients in diverse sEttings) group.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed and Embase through Ovid, up to 1 July 2020, supplemented with arXiv, medRxiv, and bioRxiv up to 5 May 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies that developed or validated a multivariable covid-19 related prediction model.

DATA EXTRACTION

At least two authors independently extracted data using the CHARMS (critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies) checklist; risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST (prediction model risk of bias assessment tool).

RESULTS

37 421 titles were screened, and 169 studies describing 232 prediction models were included. The review identified seven models for identifying people at risk in the general population; 118 diagnostic models for detecting covid-19 (75 were based on medical imaging, 10 to diagnose disease severity); and 107 prognostic models for predicting mortality risk, progression to severe disease, intensive care unit admission, ventilation, intubation, or length of hospital stay. The most frequent types of predictors included in the covid-19 prediction models are vital signs, age, comorbidities, and image features. Flu-like symptoms are frequently predictive in diagnostic models, while sex, C reactive protein, and lymphocyte counts are frequent prognostic factors. Reported C index estimates from the strongest form of validation available per model ranged from 0.71 to 0.99 in prediction models for the general population, from 0.65 to more than 0.99 in diagnostic models, and from 0.54 to 0.99 in prognostic models. All models were rated at high or unclear risk of bias, mostly because of non-representative selection of control patients, exclusion of patients who had not experienced the event of interest by the end of the study, high risk of model overfitting, and unclear reporting. Many models did not include a description of the target population (n=27, 12%) or care setting (n=75, 32%), and only 11 (5%) were externally validated by a calibration plot. The Jehi diagnostic model and the 4C mortality score were identified as promising models.

CONCLUSION

Prediction models for covid-19 are quickly entering the academic literature to support medical decision making at a time when they are urgently needed. This review indicates that almost all pubished prediction models are poorly reported, and at high risk of bias such that their reported predictive performance is probably optimistic. However, we have identified two (one diagnostic and one prognostic) promising models that should soon be validated in multiple cohorts, preferably through collaborative efforts and data sharing to also allow an investigation of the stability and heterogeneity in their performance across populations and settings. Details on all reviewed models are publicly available at https://www.covprecise.org/. Methodological guidance as provided in this paper should be followed because unreliable predictions could cause more harm than benefit in guiding clinical decisions. Finally, prediction model authors should adhere to the TRIPOD (transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis) reporting guideline.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Protocol https://osf.io/ehc47/, registration https://osf.io/wy245.

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.