Search for: All records

Context.— Machine learning (ML) allows for the analysis of massive quantities of high-dimensional clinical laboratory data, thereby revealing complex patterns and trends. Thus, ML can potentially improve the efficiency of clinical data interpretation and the practice of laboratory medicine. However, the risks of generating biased or unrepresentative models, which can lead to misleading clinical conclusions or overestimation of the model performance, should be recognized. Objectives.— To discuss the major components for creating ML models, including data collection, data preprocessing, model development, and model evaluation. We also highlight many of the challenges and pitfalls in developing ML models, which could result in misleading clinical impressions or inaccurate model performance, and provide suggestions and guidance on how to circumvent these challenges. Data Sources.— The references for this review were identified through searches of the PubMed database, US Food and Drug Administration white papers and guidelines, conference abstracts, and online preprints. Conclusions.— With the growing interest in developing and implementing ML models in clinical practice, laboratorians and clinicians need to be educated in order to collect sufficiently large and high-quality data, properly report the data set characteristics, and combine data from multiple institutions with proper normalization. They will also need to assess the reasons for missing values, determine the inclusion or exclusion of outliers, and evaluate the completeness of a data set. In addition, they require the necessary knowledge to select a suitable ML model for a specific clinical question and accurately evaluate the performance of the ML model, based on objective criteria. Domain-specific knowledge is critical in the entire workflow of developing ML models. 

Background . New York City (NYC) experienced an initial surge and gradual decline in the number of SARS-CoV-2-confirmed cases in 2020. A change in the pattern of laboratory test results in COVID-19 patients over this time has not been reported or correlated with patient outcome. Methods . We performed a retrospective study of routine laboratory and SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test results from 5,785 patients evaluated in a NYC hospital emergency department from March to June employing machine learning analysis. Results . A COVID-19 high-risk laboratory test result profile (COVID19-HRP), consisting of 21 routine blood tests, was identified to characterize the SARS-CoV-2 patients. Approximately half of the SARS-CoV-2 positive patients had the distinct COVID19-HRP that separated them from SARS-CoV-2 negative patients. SARS-CoV-2 patients with the COVID19-HRP had higher SARS-CoV-2 viral loads, determined by cycle threshold values from the RT-PCR, and poorer clinical outcome compared to other positive patients without the COVID12-HRP. Furthermore, the percentage of SARS-CoV-2 patients with the COVID19-HRP has significantly decreased from March/April to May/June. Notably, viral load in the SARS-CoV-2 patients declined, and their laboratory profile became less distinguishable from SARS-CoV-2 negative patients in the later phase. Conclusions . Our longitudinal analysis illustrates the temporal change of laboratory test result profile in SARS-CoV-2 patients and the COVID-19 evolvement in a US epicenter. This analysis could become an important tool in COVID-19 population disease severity tracking and prediction. In addition, this analysis may play an important role in prioritizing high-risk patients, assisting in patient triaging and optimizing the usage of resources. 

Abstract Background Accurate diagnostic strategies to identify SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals rapidly for management of patient care and protection of health care personnel are urgently needed. The predominant diagnostic test is viral RNA detection by RT-PCR from nasopharyngeal swabs specimens, however the results are not promptly obtainable in all patient care locations. Routine laboratory testing, in contrast, is readily available with a turn-around time (TAT) usually within 1-2 hours. Method We developed a machine learning model incorporating patient demographic features (age, sex, race) with 27 routine laboratory tests to predict an individual’s SARS-CoV-2 infection status. Laboratory testing results obtained within 2 days before the release of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR result were used to train a gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT) model from 3,356 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tested patients (1,402 positive and 1,954 negative) evaluated at a metropolitan hospital. Results The model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.854 (95% CI: 0.829-0.878). Application of this model to an independent patient dataset from a separate hospital resulted in a comparable AUC (0.838), validating the generalization of its use. Moreover, our model predicted initial SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positivity in 66% individuals whose RT-PCR result changed from negative to positive within 2 days. Conclusion This model employing routine laboratory test results offers opportunities for early and rapid identification of high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infected patients before their RT-PCR results are available. It may play an important role in assisting the identification of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients in areas where RT-PCR testing is not accessible due to financial or supply constraints.