Author: D'Ambrosia, C.; Christensen, H.; Aronoff-Spencer, E.
Title: Ruling In and Ruling Out COVID-19: Computing SARS-CoV-2 Infection Risk From Symptoms, Imaging and Test Data. Cord-id: xbkiv045 Document date: 2020_9_22
ID: xbkiv045
Snippet: Background: Assigning meaningful probabilities of SARS CoV2 infection risk presents a diagnostic challenge across the continuum of care. Methods: We integrated patient symptom and test data using machine learning and Bayesian inference to quantify individual patient risk of SARS CoV 2 infection. We trained models with 100,000 simulated patient profiles based on thirteen symptoms, estimated local prevalence, imaging, and molecular diagnostic performance from published reports. We tested these mod
Document: Background: Assigning meaningful probabilities of SARS CoV2 infection risk presents a diagnostic challenge across the continuum of care. Methods: We integrated patient symptom and test data using machine learning and Bayesian inference to quantify individual patient risk of SARS CoV 2 infection. We trained models with 100,000 simulated patient profiles based on thirteen symptoms, estimated local prevalence, imaging, and molecular diagnostic performance from published reports. We tested these models with consecutive patients who presented with a COVID 19 compatible illness at the University of California San Diego Medical Center over 14 days starting in March 2020. Results: We included 55 consecutive patients with fever (78%) or cough (77%) presenting for ambulatory (n=11) or hospital care (n=44). 51% (n=28) were female, 49% were age <60. Common comorbidities included diabetes (22%), hypertension (27%), cancer (16%) and cardiovascular disease (13%). 69% of these (n=38) were RT-PCR confirmed positive for SARS CoV2 infection, 11 had repeated negative nucleic acid testing and an alternate diagnosis. Bayesian inference network, distance metric learning, and ensemble models discriminated between patients with SARS CoV2 infection and alternate diagnoses with sensitivities of 81.6 to 84.2%, specificities of 58.8 to 70.6%, and accuracies of 61.4 to 71.8%. After integrating imaging and laboratory test statistics with the predictions of the Bayesian inference network, changes in diagnostic uncertainty at each step in the simulated clinical evaluation process were highly sensitive to location, symptom, and diagnostic test choices. Conclusions: Decision support models that incorporate symptoms and available test results can help providers diagnose SARS CoV2 infection in real world settings.
Search related documents:
Co phrase search for related documents- absence presence and acid amplification: 1, 2, 3
- absence presence and acid amplification test: 1
- absence presence and local disease: 1
- acid amplification and acute ambulatory: 1
- acid amplification and local disease: 1
- acid amplification and local prevalence: 1
- acid amplification test and acute ambulatory: 1
Co phrase search for related documents, hyperlinks ordered by date