Márton Rakovics, Fanni Adél Meznerics, Péter Fehérvári, Tamás Kói, Dezső Csupor, András Bánvölgyi, Gabriella Anna Rapszky, Marie Anne Engh, Péter Hegyi, Andrea Harnos
{"title":"深度神经网络在COVID-19疾病严重程度预测中表现出色-一种元回归分析。","authors":"Márton Rakovics, Fanni Adél Meznerics, Péter Fehérvári, Tamás Kói, Dezső Csupor, András Bánvölgyi, Gabriella Anna Rapszky, Marie Anne Engh, Péter Hegyi, Andrea Harnos","doi":"10.1038/s41598-025-95282-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>COVID-19 is a disease in which early prognosis of severity is critical for desired patient outcomes and for the management of limited resources like intensive care unit beds and ventilation equipment. Many prognostic statistical tools have been developed for the prediction of disease severity, but it is still unclear which ones should be used in practice. We aim to guide clinicians in choosing the best available tools to make optimal decisions and assess their role in resource management and assess what can be learned from the COVID-19 scenario for development of prediction models in similar medical applications. Using the five major medical databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and Scopus, we conducted a comprehensive systematic review of prediction tools between 2020 January and 2023 April for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We identified both the relevant confounding factors of tool performance using the MetaForest algorithm and the best tools-comparing linear, machine learning, and deep learning methods-with mixed-effects meta-regression models. The risk of bias was evaluated using the PROBAST tool. Our systematic search identified eligible 27,312 studies, out of which 290 were eligible for data extraction, reporting on 430 independent evaluations of severity prediction tools with ~ 2.8 million patients. Neural Network-based tools have the highest performance with a pooled AUC of 0.893 (0.748-1.000), 0.752 (0.614-0.853) sensitivity, 0.914 (0.849-0.952) specificity, using clinical, laboratory, and imaging data. The relevant confounders of performance are the geographic region of patients, the rate of severe cases, and the use of C-Reactive Protein as input data. 88% of studies have a high risk of bias, mostly because of deficiencies in the data analysis. All investigated tools in use aid decision-making for COVID-19 severity prediction, but Machine Learning tools, specifically Neural Networks clearly outperform other methods, especially in cases when the basic characteristics of severe and non-severe patient groups are similar, and without the need for more data. When highly specific biomarkers are not available-such as in the case of COVID-19-practitioners should abandon general clinical severity scores and turn to disease specific Machine Learning tools.</p>","PeriodicalId":21811,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Reports","volume":"15 1","pages":"10350"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11937321/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Deep neural networks excel in COVID-19 disease severity prediction-a meta-regression analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Márton Rakovics, Fanni Adél Meznerics, Péter Fehérvári, Tamás Kói, Dezső Csupor, András Bánvölgyi, Gabriella Anna Rapszky, Marie Anne Engh, Péter Hegyi, Andrea Harnos\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41598-025-95282-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>COVID-19 is a disease in which early prognosis of severity is critical for desired patient outcomes and for the management of limited resources like intensive care unit beds and ventilation equipment. Many prognostic statistical tools have been developed for the prediction of disease severity, but it is still unclear which ones should be used in practice. We aim to guide clinicians in choosing the best available tools to make optimal decisions and assess their role in resource management and assess what can be learned from the COVID-19 scenario for development of prediction models in similar medical applications. Using the five major medical databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and Scopus, we conducted a comprehensive systematic review of prediction tools between 2020 January and 2023 April for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We identified both the relevant confounding factors of tool performance using the MetaForest algorithm and the best tools-comparing linear, machine learning, and deep learning methods-with mixed-effects meta-regression models. The risk of bias was evaluated using the PROBAST tool. Our systematic search identified eligible 27,312 studies, out of which 290 were eligible for data extraction, reporting on 430 independent evaluations of severity prediction tools with ~ 2.8 million patients. Neural Network-based tools have the highest performance with a pooled AUC of 0.893 (0.748-1.000), 0.752 (0.614-0.853) sensitivity, 0.914 (0.849-0.952) specificity, using clinical, laboratory, and imaging data. The relevant confounders of performance are the geographic region of patients, the rate of severe cases, and the use of C-Reactive Protein as input data. 88% of studies have a high risk of bias, mostly because of deficiencies in the data analysis. All investigated tools in use aid decision-making for COVID-19 severity prediction, but Machine Learning tools, specifically Neural Networks clearly outperform other methods, especially in cases when the basic characteristics of severe and non-severe patient groups are similar, and without the need for more data. When highly specific biomarkers are not available-such as in the case of COVID-19-practitioners should abandon general clinical severity scores and turn to disease specific Machine Learning tools.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21811,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"10350\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11937321/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-95282-6\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Reports","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-95282-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
COVID-19是一种疾病,其严重程度的早期预后对于预期的患者结果以及对重症监护病房床位和通气设备等有限资源的管理至关重要。许多预后统计工具已被开发用于疾病严重程度的预测,但仍不清楚哪些应该在实践中使用。我们的目标是指导临床医生选择最佳可用工具,以做出最佳决策,评估其在资源管理中的作用,并评估从COVID-19情景中可以学到的东西,以开发类似医疗应用中的预测模型。利用MEDLINE(通过PubMed)、Embase、Cochrane Library (CENTRAL)、Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register和Scopus这五个主要医学数据库,我们对2020年1月至2023年4月住院的COVID-19患者的预测工具进行了全面的系统评价。我们使用MetaForest算法和使用混合效应元回归模型比较线性、机器学习和深度学习方法的最佳工具,确定了影响工具性能的相关混杂因素。使用PROBAST工具评估偏倚风险。我们的系统检索确定了符合条件的27,312项研究,其中290项符合数据提取条件,报告了430项独立的严重程度预测工具评估,涉及约280万患者。使用临床、实验室和影像学数据,基于神经网络的工具的综合AUC为0.893(0.748-1.000),敏感性为0.752(0.614-0.853),特异性为0.914(0.849-0.952),表现最佳。影响疗效的相关混杂因素包括患者所在的地理区域、严重病例的发生率以及使用c反应蛋白作为输入数据。88%的研究存在较高的偏倚风险,主要是由于数据分析的不足。所有使用的调查工具都有助于COVID-19严重程度预测的决策,但机器学习工具,特别是神经网络,明显优于其他方法,特别是在重症和非重症患者组的基本特征相似且不需要更多数据的情况下。当无法获得高度特异性的生物标志物时(例如在covid -19的情况下),从业者应放弃一般的临床严重程度评分,转而使用针对疾病的机器学习工具。
Deep neural networks excel in COVID-19 disease severity prediction-a meta-regression analysis.
COVID-19 is a disease in which early prognosis of severity is critical for desired patient outcomes and for the management of limited resources like intensive care unit beds and ventilation equipment. Many prognostic statistical tools have been developed for the prediction of disease severity, but it is still unclear which ones should be used in practice. We aim to guide clinicians in choosing the best available tools to make optimal decisions and assess their role in resource management and assess what can be learned from the COVID-19 scenario for development of prediction models in similar medical applications. Using the five major medical databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and Scopus, we conducted a comprehensive systematic review of prediction tools between 2020 January and 2023 April for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We identified both the relevant confounding factors of tool performance using the MetaForest algorithm and the best tools-comparing linear, machine learning, and deep learning methods-with mixed-effects meta-regression models. The risk of bias was evaluated using the PROBAST tool. Our systematic search identified eligible 27,312 studies, out of which 290 were eligible for data extraction, reporting on 430 independent evaluations of severity prediction tools with ~ 2.8 million patients. Neural Network-based tools have the highest performance with a pooled AUC of 0.893 (0.748-1.000), 0.752 (0.614-0.853) sensitivity, 0.914 (0.849-0.952) specificity, using clinical, laboratory, and imaging data. The relevant confounders of performance are the geographic region of patients, the rate of severe cases, and the use of C-Reactive Protein as input data. 88% of studies have a high risk of bias, mostly because of deficiencies in the data analysis. All investigated tools in use aid decision-making for COVID-19 severity prediction, but Machine Learning tools, specifically Neural Networks clearly outperform other methods, especially in cases when the basic characteristics of severe and non-severe patient groups are similar, and without the need for more data. When highly specific biomarkers are not available-such as in the case of COVID-19-practitioners should abandon general clinical severity scores and turn to disease specific Machine Learning tools.
期刊介绍:
We publish original research from all areas of the natural sciences, psychology, medicine and engineering. You can learn more about what we publish by browsing our specific scientific subject areas below or explore Scientific Reports by browsing all articles and collections.
Scientific Reports has a 2-year impact factor: 4.380 (2021), and is the 6th most-cited journal in the world, with more than 540,000 citations in 2020 (Clarivate Analytics, 2021).
•Engineering
Engineering covers all aspects of engineering, technology, and applied science. It plays a crucial role in the development of technologies to address some of the world''s biggest challenges, helping to save lives and improve the way we live.
•Physical sciences
Physical sciences are those academic disciplines that aim to uncover the underlying laws of nature — often written in the language of mathematics. It is a collective term for areas of study including astronomy, chemistry, materials science and physics.
•Earth and environmental sciences
Earth and environmental sciences cover all aspects of Earth and planetary science and broadly encompass solid Earth processes, surface and atmospheric dynamics, Earth system history, climate and climate change, marine and freshwater systems, and ecology. It also considers the interactions between humans and these systems.
•Biological sciences
Biological sciences encompass all the divisions of natural sciences examining various aspects of vital processes. The concept includes anatomy, physiology, cell biology, biochemistry and biophysics, and covers all organisms from microorganisms, animals to plants.
•Health sciences
The health sciences study health, disease and healthcare. This field of study aims to develop knowledge, interventions and technology for use in healthcare to improve the treatment of patients.