Search for: All records

Abstract Patients with influenza and SARS-CoV2/Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections have a different clinical course and outcomes. We developed and validated a supervised machine learning pipeline to distinguish the two viral infections using the available vital signs and demographic dataset from the first hospital/emergency room encounters of 3883 patients who had confirmed diagnoses of influenza A/B, COVID-19 or negative laboratory test results. The models were able to achieve an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC AUC) of at least 97% using our multiclass classifier. The predictive models were externally validated on 15,697 encounters in 3125 patients available on TrinetX database that contains patient-level data from different healthcare organizations. The influenza vs COVID-19-positive model had an AUC of 98.8%, and 92.8% on the internal and external test sets, respectively. Our study illustrates the potentials of machine-learning models for accurately distinguishing the two viral infections. The code is made available athttps://github.com/ynaveena/COVID-19-vs-Influenzaand may have utility as a frontline diagnostic tool to aid healthcare workers in triaging patients once the two viral infections start cocirculating in the communities. 

Abstract Aims Coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring is an established tool for cardiovascular risk stratification. However, the lack of widespread availability and concerns about radiation exposure have limited the universal clinical utilization of CAC. In this study, we sought to explore whether machine learning (ML) approaches can aid cardiovascular risk stratification by predicting guideline recommended CAC score categories from clinical features and surface electrocardiograms. Methods and results In this substudy of a prospective, multicentre trial, a total of 534 subjects referred for CAC scores and electrocardiographic data were split into 80% training and 20% testing sets. Two binary outcome ML logistic regression models were developed for prediction of CAC scores equal to 0 and ≥400. Both CAC = 0 and CAC ≥400 models yielded values for the area under the curve, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 84%, 92%, 70%, and 75%, and 87%, 91%, 75%, and 81%, respectively. We further tested the CAC ≥400 model to risk stratify a cohort of 87 subjects referred for invasive coronary angiography. Using an intermediate or higher pretest probability (≥15%) to predict CAC ≥400, the model predicted the presence of significant coronary artery stenosis (P = 0.025), the need for revascularization (P < 0.001), notably bypass surgery (P = 0.021), and major adverse cardiovascular events (P = 0.023) during a median follow-up period of 2 years. Conclusion ML techniques can extract information from electrocardiographic data and clinical variables to predict CAC score categories and similarly risk-stratify patients with suspected coronary artery disease.