Cited by 23Machine Learning in HealthcareCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Predicting critical state after COVID-19 diagnosis: Model development using a large US electronic health record dataset

Open access
Rinderknecht, Mike D., Klopfenstein, Yannick·2021·npj Digital Medicine

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

As the COVID-19 pandemic is challenging healthcare systems worldwide, early identification of patients with a high risk of complication is crucial. We present a prognostic model predicting critical state within 28 days following COVID-19 diagnosis trained on data from US electronic health records (IBM Explorys), including demographics, comorbidities, symptoms, and hospitalization. Out of 15753 COVID-19 patients, 2050 went into critical state or deceased. Non-random train-test splits by time were repeated 100 times and led to a ROC AUC of 0.861 [0.838, 0.883] and a precision-recall AUC of 0.434 [0.414, 0.485] (median and interquartile range). The interpretability analysis confirmed evidence on major risk factors (e.g., older age, higher BMI, male gender, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease) in an efficient way compared to clinical studies, demonstrating the model validity. Such personalized predictions could enable fine-graded risk stratification for optimized care management.

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 · 10.1038/s41746-021-00482-9

Cites

76 of 76 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [20]DeCaprio, D. et al. Building a COVID-19 vulnerability index. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.07347 (2020). · arXiv

Authors
Rinderknecht, M. D., & Klopfenstein, Y.
Corresponding author
Klopfenstein, Yannick
Venue
npj Digital Medicine
Published
2021-07-20
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
113-113
ISSN
2398-6352 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3186718770
Cited by
23
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1
FWCI
1.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • npj Digital Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, critical illness prediction, prognostic model, risk stratification, electronic health records, comorbidities, diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, body mass index, age, mortality, model interpretability

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