Development, evaluation, and validation of machine learning models for COVID-19 detection based on routine blood tests
Author:
Cabitza Federico1, Campagner Andrea2, Ferrari Davide3, Di Resta Chiara4, Ceriotti Daniele5, Sabetta Eleonora5, Colombini Alessandra2, De Vecchi Elena2, Banfi Giuseppe2, Locatelli Massimo5, Carobene Anna5
Affiliation:
1. DISCo, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca , Milan , Italy 2. IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Laboratory of Clinical Chemistry and Microbiology , Milan , Italy 3. SCVSA Department , University of Parma , Parma , Italy 4. Vita-Salute San Raffaele University; Unit of Genomics for Human Disease Diagnosis, Division of Genetics and Cell Biology , Milan , Italy 5. Laboratory Medicine , IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute , Milan , Italy
Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
The rRT-PCR test, the current gold standard for the detection of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), presents with known shortcomings, such as long turnaround time, potential shortage of reagents, false-negative rates around 15–20%, and expensive equipment. The hematochemical values of routine blood exams could represent a faster and less expensive alternative.
Methods
Three different training data set of hematochemical values from 1,624 patients (52% COVID-19 positive), admitted at San Raphael Hospital (OSR) from February to May 2020, were used for developing machine learning (ML) models: the complete OSR dataset (72 features: complete blood count (CBC), biochemical, coagulation, hemogasanalysis and CO-Oxymetry values, age, sex and specific symptoms at triage) and two sub-datasets (COVID-specific and CBC dataset, 32 and 21 features respectively). 58 cases (50% COVID-19 positive) from another hospital, and 54 negative patients collected in 2018 at OSR, were used for internal-external and external validation.
Results
We developed five ML models: for the complete OSR dataset, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the algorithms ranged from 0.83 to 0.90; for the COVID-specific dataset from 0.83 to 0.87; and for the CBC dataset from 0.74 to 0.86. The validations also achieved good results: respectively, AUC from 0.75 to 0.78; and specificity from 0.92 to 0.96.
Conclusions
ML can be applied to blood tests as both an adjunct and alternative method to rRT-PCR for the fast and cost-effective identification of COVID-19-positive patients. This is especially useful in developing countries, or in countries facing an increase in contagions.
Publisher
Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Subject
Biochemistry (medical),Clinical Biochemistry,General Medicine
Reference44 articles.
1. Oran, DP, Topol, EJ. Prevalence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection: a narrative review. Ann Intern Med. https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-3012. [Published online June 3, 2020]. 2. Vogels, CBF, Brito, AF, Wyllie, AL, Fauver, JR, Ott, IM, Kalinich, CC, et al. Analytical sensitivity and efficiency comparisons of SARS-CoV-2 RT–qPCR primer–probe sets. Nat Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-020-0761-6. [Published online July 10, 2020]. 3. Lippi, G, Simundic, A-M, Plebani, M. Potential preanalytical and analytical vulnerabilities in the laboratory diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Clin Chem Lab Med 2020;58:1070–6. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2020-0285. 4. Woloshin, S, Patel, N, Kesselheim, AS. False negative tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection — challenges and implications. N Engl J Med 2020;383:e38. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp2015897. 5. Wynants, L, Van Calster, B, Collins, GS, Riley, RD, Heinze, G, Schuit, E, et al. Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of COVID-19: systematic review and critical appraisal. BMJ 2020;369:m1328. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1328.
Cited by
123 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|