Prognostic models in COVID-19 infection that predict severity: a systematic review.

Current evidence on COVID-19 prognostic models is inconsistent and clinical applicability remains controversial. We performed a systematic review to summarize and critically appraise the available studies that have developed, assessed and/or validated prognostic models of COVID-19 predicting health outcomes. We searched six bibliographic databases to identify published articles that investigated univariable and multivariable prognostic models predicting adverse outcomes in adult COVID-19 patients, including intensive care unit (ICU) admission, intubation, high-flow nasal therapy (HFNT), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and mortality. We identified and assessed 314 eligible articles from more than 40 countries, with 152 of these studies presenting mortality, 66 progression to severe or critical illness, 35 mortality and ICU admission combined, 17 ICU admission only, while the remaining 44 studies reported prediction models for mechanical ventilation (MV) or a combination of multiple outcomes. The sample size of included studies varied from 11 to 7,704,171 participants, with a mean age ranging from 18 to 93 years. There were 353 prognostic models investigated, with area under the curve (AUC) ranging from 0.44 to 0.99. A great proportion of studies (61.5%, 193 out of 314) performed internal or external validation or replication. In 312 (99.4%) studies, prognostic models were reported to be at high risk of bias due to uncertainties and challenges surrounding methodological rigor, sampling, handling of missing data, failure to deal with overfitting and heterogeneous definitions of COVID-19 and severity outcomes. While several clinical prognostic models for COVID-19 have been described in the literature, they are limited in generalizability and/or applicability due to deficiencies in addressing fundamental statistical and methodological concerns. Future large, multi-centric and well-designed prognostic prospective studies are needed to clarify remaining uncertainties.

A Multiclass Radiomics Method-Based WHO Severity Scale for Improving COVID-19 Patient Assessment and Disease Characterization From CT Scans.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the severity of COVID-19 patients' disease by comparing a multiclass lung lesion model to a single-class lung lesion model and radiologists' assessments in chest computed tomography scans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The proposed method, AssessNet-19, was developed in 2 stages in this retrospective study. Four COVID-19-induced tissue lesions were manually segmented to train a 2D-U-Net network for a multiclass segmentation task followed by extensive extraction of radiomic features from the lung lesions. LASSO regression was used to reduce the feature set, and the XGBoost algorithm was trained to classify disease severity based on the World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale. The model was evaluated using 2 multicenter cohorts: a development cohort of 145 COVID-19-positive patients from 3 centers to train and test the severity prediction model using manually segmented lung lesions. In addition, an evaluation set of 90 COVID-19-positive patients was collected from 2 centers to evaluate AssessNet-19 in a fully automated fashion. RESULTS: AssessNet-19 achieved an F1-score of 0.76 ± 0.02 for severity classification in the evaluation set, which was superior to the 3 expert thoracic radiologists (F1 = 0.63 ± 0.02) and the single-class lesion segmentation model (F1 = 0.64 ± 0.02). In addition, AssessNet-19 automated multiclass lesion segmentation obtained a mean Dice score of 0.70 for ground-glass opacity, 0.68 for consolidation, 0.65 for pleural effusion, and 0.30 for band-like structures compared with ground truth. Moreover, it achieved a high agreement with radiologists for quantifying disease extent with Cohen κ of 0.94, 0.92, and 0.95. CONCLUSIONS: A novel artificial intelligence multiclass radiomics model including 4 lung lesions to assess disease severity based on the World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale more accurately determines the severity of COVID-19 patients than a single-class model and radiologists' assessment.