Cited by 150COVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesMachine Learning in HealthcareCOVID-19 diagnosis using AI

Rapid triage for COVID-19 using routine clinical data for patients attending hospital: development and prospective validation of an artificial intelligence screening test

Open access
Soltan, Andrew A S, Kouchaki, Samaneh, Zhu, Tingting, Kiyasseh, Dani, Taylor, Thomas, Hussain, Zaamin B, Peto, Tim, Brent, Andrew J +2 more·2021·The Lancet Digital Health

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The early clinical course of COVID-19 can be difficult to distinguish from other illnesses driving presentation to hospital. However, viral-specific PCR testing has limited sensitivity and results can take up to 72 h for operational reasons. We aimed to develop and validate two early-detection models for COVID-19, screening for the disease among patients attending the emergency department and the subset being admitted to hospital, using routinely collected health-care data (laboratory tests, blood gas measurements, and vital signs). These data are typically available within the first hour of presentation to hospitals in high-income and middle-income countries, within the existing laboratory infrastructure. METHODS: We trained linear and non-linear machine learning classifiers to distinguish patients with COVID-19 from pre-pandemic controls, using electronic health record data for patients presenting to the emergency department and admitted across a group of four teaching hospitals in Oxfordshire, UK (Oxford University Hospitals). Data extracted included presentation blood tests, blood gas testing, vital signs, and results of PCR testing for respiratory viruses. Adult patients (>18 years) presenting to hospital before Dec 1, 2019 (before the first COVID-19 outbreak), were included in the COVID-19-negative cohort; those presenting to hospital between Dec 1, 2019, and April 19, 2020, with PCR-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection were included in the COVID-19-positive cohort. Patients who were subsequently admitted to hospital were included in their respective COVID-19-negative or COVID-19-positive admissions cohorts. Models were calibrated to sensitivities of 70%, 80%, and 90% during training, and performance was initially assessed on a held-out test set generated by an 80:20 split stratified by patients with COVID-19 and balanced equally with pre-pandemic controls. To simulate real-world performance at different stages of an epidemic, we generated test sets with varying prevalences of COVID-19 and assessed predictive values for our models. We prospectively validated our 80% sensitivity models for all patients presenting or admitted to the Oxford University Hospitals between April 20 and May 6, 2020, comparing model predictions with PCR test results. FINDINGS: We assessed 155 689 adult patients presenting to hospital between Dec 1, 2017, and April 19, 2020. 114 957 patients were included in the COVID-negative cohort and 437 in the COVID-positive cohort, for a full study population of 115 394 patients, with 72 310 admitted to hospital. With a sensitive configuration of 80%, our emergency department (ED) model achieved 77·4% sensitivity and 95·7% specificity (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC] 0·939) for COVID-19 among all patients attending hospital, and the admissions model achieved 77·4% sensitivity and 94·8% specificity (AUROC 0·940) for the subset of patients admitted to hospital. Both models achieved high negative predictive values (NPV; >98·5%) across a range of prevalences (≤5%). We prospectively validated our models for all patients presenting and admitted to Oxford University Hospitals in a 2-week test period. The ED model (3326 patients) achieved 92·3% accuracy (NPV 97·6%, AUROC 0·881), and the admissions model (1715 patients) achieved 92·5% accuracy (97·7%, 0·871) in comparison with PCR results. Sensitivity analyses to account for uncertainty in negative PCR results improved apparent accuracy (ED model 95·1%, admissions model 94·1%) and NPV (ED model 99·0%, admissions model 98·5%). INTERPRETATION: Our models performed effectively as a screening test for COVID-19, excluding the illness with high-confidence by use of clinical data routinely available within 1 h of presentation to hospital. Our approach is rapidly scalable, fitting within the existing laboratory testing infrastructure and standard of care of hospitals in high-income and middle-income countries. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust, University of Oxford, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s2589-7500(20)30274-0

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 33 · Cited by 150

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. [2]Adhikari SP Meng S Wu Y Novel coronavirus during the early outbreak period: epidemiology, causes, clinical manifestation and diagnosis, prevention and control Infect Dis Poverty 9 2020 1 12 32183901 PMC7079521
  2. [3]Guan WJ Ni ZY Hu Y Clinical characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 in China N Engl J Med 382 2020 1708 1720 32109013 PMC7092819
  3. [4]Wang D Hu B Hu C Clinical characteristics of 138 hospitalized patients with 2019 novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia in Wuhan, China JAMA 323 2020 1061 1069 32031570 PMC7042881
  4. [5]Long C Xu H Shen Q Diagnosis of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19): rRT-PCR or CT? Eur J Radiol 126 2020 108961 PMC7102545 32229322
  5. [7]Long DR Gombar S Hogan CA Occurrence and timing of subsequent SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positivity among initially negative patients Clin Infect Dis 2020 published online June 7. 10.1093/cid/ciaa722 PMC7314163 33501950 · DOI
  6. [8]Tang Y Schmitz JE Persing DH Stratton CW The laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 infection: current issues and challenges J Clin Microbiol 58 2020 1 9 PMC7269383 32245835
  7. [9]Petersen I Phillips A Three quarters of people with SARS-CoV-2 infection are asymptomatic: analysis of English household survey data Clin Epidemiol 12 2020 1039 1043 33116898 PMC7549754
  8. [10]Udugama B Kadhiresan P Kozlowski HN Diagnosing COVID-19: the disease and tools for detection ACS Nano 14 2020 3822 3835 32223179
  9. [11]Brinati D Campagner A Ferrari D Locatelli M Banfi G Cabitza F Detection of COVID-19 infection from routine blood exams with machine learning: a feasibility study J Med Syst 44 2020 135 32607737 PMC7326624
  10. [12]Menni C Valdes AM Freidin MB Real-time tracking of self-reported symptoms to predict potential COVID-19 Nat Med 26 2020 1037 1040 32393804 PMC7751267
  11. [13]Collins GS Reitsma JB Altman DG Moons KGM Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement Ann Intern Med 162 2015 55 63 25560714
  12. [15]Kermali M Khalsa RK Pillai K Ismail Z Harky A The role of biomarkers in diagnosis of COVID-19—a systematic review Life Sci 254 2020 117788 PMC7219356 32475810
  13. [16]Kristensen M Iversen AKS Gerds TA Routine blood tests are associated with short term mortality and can improve emergency department triage: a cohort study of >12,000 patients Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 25 2017 115 29179764 PMC5704435
  14. [17]Chen T, Guestrin C. XGBoost: a scalable tree boosting system. KDD 19: The 25th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining; Anchorage, AK, USA; Aug 13–17, 2019.
  15. [19]Mei X Lee HC Diao KY Artificial intelligence-enabled rapid diagnosis of patients with COVID-19 Nat Med 26 2020 1224 1228 32427924 PMC7446729
  16. [21]Wells PS Anderson DR Rodger M Evaluation of D-dimer in the diagnosis of suspected deep-vein thrombosis N Engl J Med 349 2003 1227 1235 14507948
  17. [23]Wang S Zha Y Li W A fully automatic deep learning system for COVID-19 diagnostic and prognostic analysis Eur Respir J 56 2020 2000775 PMC7243395 32444412
  18. [24]Feng C Huang Z Wang L A Novel triage tool of artificial intelligence assisted diagnosis aid system for suspected COVID-19 pneumonia in fever clinics SSRN 2020 published online March 19. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3551355 (preprint) PMC7940949 33708828
  19. [25]Sun Y Koh V Marimuthu K Epidemiological and clinical predictors of COVID-19 Clin Infect Dis 71 2020 786 792 32211755 PMC7542554
  20. [26]Kim L Whitaker M O'Halloran A Hospitalization rates and characteristics of children aged <18 years hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19—COVID-NET, 14 States, March 1-July 25, 2020 MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 69 2020 1081 1088 32790664 PMC7440125

Authors
Soltan, A. A. S., Kouchaki, S., Zhu, T., Kiyasseh, D., Taylor, T., Hussain, Z. B., Peto, T., Brent, A. J., Eyre, D. W., & Clifton, D. A.
Affiliations
  • John Radcliffe Hospital (GB)
  • University of Surrey (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Soltan, Andrew A S
Venue
The Lancet Digital Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-02
Volume
3
Issue
2
Pages
e78-e87
ISSN
2589-7500 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3110677219
Cited by
150
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 6
FWCI
3.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Oxford
  • NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › COVID-19 diagnosis using AI
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2, triage, early detection, artificial intelligence, clinical decision support, emergency department, hospitalization, routine clinical data, electronic health records, blood analysis, blood gases, vital signs, PCR testing, sensitivity, predictive value, prevalence, prospective validation, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom, teaching hospitals, machine learning classifiers
MeSH terms
COVID-19, Adult, Artificial Intelligence, Emergency Service, Hospital, Hematologic Tests, Hospitalization, Hospitals, Humans, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Prospective Studies, Triage

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review