免疫和细胞损伤生物标志物预测住院患者COVID-19死亡率

Q4 Immunology and Microbiology
Carlo Lombardi , Elena Roca , Barbara Bigni , Bruno Bertozzi , Camillo Ferrandina , Alberto Franzin , Oscar Vivaldi , Marcello Cottini , Andrea D'Alessio , Paolo Del Poggio , Gian Marco Conte , Alvise Berti
{"title":"免疫和细胞损伤生物标志物预测住院患者COVID-19死亡率","authors":"Carlo Lombardi ,&nbsp;Elena Roca ,&nbsp;Barbara Bigni ,&nbsp;Bruno Bertozzi ,&nbsp;Camillo Ferrandina ,&nbsp;Alberto Franzin ,&nbsp;Oscar Vivaldi ,&nbsp;Marcello Cottini ,&nbsp;Andrea D'Alessio ,&nbsp;Paolo Del Poggio ,&nbsp;Gian Marco Conte ,&nbsp;Alvise Berti","doi":"10.1016/j.crimmu.2021.09.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Early prediction of COVID-19 in-hospital mortality relies usually on patients’ preexisting comorbidities and is rarely reproducible in independent cohorts. We wanted to compare the role of routinely measured biomarkers of immunity, inflammation, and cellular damage with preexisting comorbidities in eight different machine-learning models to predict mortality, and evaluate their performance in an independent population. We recruited and followed-up consecutive adult patients with SARS-Cov-2 infection in two different Italian hospitals. We predicted 60-day mortality in one cohort (development dataset, n = 299 patients, of which 80% was allocated to the development dataset and 20% to the training set) and retested the models in the second cohort (external validation dataset, n = 402).</p><p>Demographic, clinical, and laboratory features at admission, treatments and disease outcomes were significantly different between the two cohorts. Notably, significant differences were observed for %lymphocytes (p &lt; 0.05), international-normalized-ratio (p &lt; 0.01), platelets, alanine-aminotransferase, creatinine (all p &lt; 0.001). The primary outcome (60-day mortality) was 29.10% (n = 87) in the development dataset, and 39.55% (n = 159) in the external validation dataset. The performance of the 8 tested models on the external validation dataset were similar to that of the holdout test dataset, indicating that the models capture the key predictors of mortality. The shap analysis in both datasets showed that age, immune features (%lymphocytes, platelets) and LDH substantially impacted on all models' predictions, while creatinine and CRP varied among the different models. The model with the better performance was model 8 (60-day mortality AUROC 0.83 ± 0.06 in holdout test set, 0.79 ± 0.02 in external validation dataset). The features that had the greatest impact on this model's prediction were age, LDH, platelets, and %lymphocytes, more than comorbidities or inflammation markers, and these findings were highly consistent in both datasets, likely reflecting the virus effect at the very beginning of the disease.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72750,"journal":{"name":"Current research in immunology","volume":"2 ","pages":"Pages 155-162"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/2e/d6/main.PMC8444380.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Immune and cellular damage biomarkers to predict COVID-19 mortality in hospitalized patients\",\"authors\":\"Carlo Lombardi ,&nbsp;Elena Roca ,&nbsp;Barbara Bigni ,&nbsp;Bruno Bertozzi ,&nbsp;Camillo Ferrandina ,&nbsp;Alberto Franzin ,&nbsp;Oscar Vivaldi ,&nbsp;Marcello Cottini ,&nbsp;Andrea D'Alessio ,&nbsp;Paolo Del Poggio ,&nbsp;Gian Marco Conte ,&nbsp;Alvise Berti\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.crimmu.2021.09.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Early prediction of COVID-19 in-hospital mortality relies usually on patients’ preexisting comorbidities and is rarely reproducible in independent cohorts. We wanted to compare the role of routinely measured biomarkers of immunity, inflammation, and cellular damage with preexisting comorbidities in eight different machine-learning models to predict mortality, and evaluate their performance in an independent population. We recruited and followed-up consecutive adult patients with SARS-Cov-2 infection in two different Italian hospitals. We predicted 60-day mortality in one cohort (development dataset, n = 299 patients, of which 80% was allocated to the development dataset and 20% to the training set) and retested the models in the second cohort (external validation dataset, n = 402).</p><p>Demographic, clinical, and laboratory features at admission, treatments and disease outcomes were significantly different between the two cohorts. Notably, significant differences were observed for %lymphocytes (p &lt; 0.05), international-normalized-ratio (p &lt; 0.01), platelets, alanine-aminotransferase, creatinine (all p &lt; 0.001). The primary outcome (60-day mortality) was 29.10% (n = 87) in the development dataset, and 39.55% (n = 159) in the external validation dataset. The performance of the 8 tested models on the external validation dataset were similar to that of the holdout test dataset, indicating that the models capture the key predictors of mortality. The shap analysis in both datasets showed that age, immune features (%lymphocytes, platelets) and LDH substantially impacted on all models' predictions, while creatinine and CRP varied among the different models. The model with the better performance was model 8 (60-day mortality AUROC 0.83 ± 0.06 in holdout test set, 0.79 ± 0.02 in external validation dataset). The features that had the greatest impact on this model's prediction were age, LDH, platelets, and %lymphocytes, more than comorbidities or inflammation markers, and these findings were highly consistent in both datasets, likely reflecting the virus effect at the very beginning of the disease.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72750,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current research in immunology\",\"volume\":\"2 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 155-162\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/2e/d6/main.PMC8444380.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current research in immunology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590255521000160\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Immunology and Microbiology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current research in immunology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590255521000160","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Immunology and Microbiology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

COVID-19住院死亡率的早期预测通常依赖于患者先前存在的合并症,并且在独立队列中很少可重复。我们希望在八种不同的机器学习模型中比较常规测量的免疫、炎症和细胞损伤生物标志物与先前存在的合并症的作用,以预测死亡率,并评估它们在独立人群中的表现。我们在意大利两家不同的医院招募并随访了连续感染SARS-Cov-2的成年患者。我们预测了一个队列(开发数据集,n = 299例患者,其中80%分配给开发数据集,20%分配给训练集)的60天死亡率,并在第二个队列(外部验证数据集,n = 402)中重新测试了模型。入院时的人口学、临床和实验室特征、治疗和疾病结局在两个队列之间有显著差异。值得注意的是,淋巴细胞百分比(p <0.05),国际标准化比率(p <0.01)、血小板、丙氨酸转氨酶、肌酐(p <0.001)。主要结局(60天死亡率)在开发数据集中为29.10% (n = 87),在外部验证数据集中为39.55% (n = 159)。8个被测试模型在外部验证数据集上的性能与holdout测试数据集相似,表明模型捕获了死亡率的关键预测因子。两个数据集的形状分析显示,年龄、免疫特征(淋巴细胞百分比、血小板百分比)和LDH对所有模型的预测都有很大影响,而肌酐和CRP在不同模型中有所不同。表现较好的模型为模型8 (holdout组60天死亡率AUROC为0.83±0.06,外部验证组为0.79±0.02)。对该模型预测影响最大的特征是年龄、LDH、血小板和淋巴细胞百分比,而不是合并症或炎症标志物,这些发现在两个数据集中高度一致,可能反映了疾病初期的病毒效应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Immune and cellular damage biomarkers to predict COVID-19 mortality in hospitalized patients

Immune and cellular damage biomarkers to predict COVID-19 mortality in hospitalized patients

Early prediction of COVID-19 in-hospital mortality relies usually on patients’ preexisting comorbidities and is rarely reproducible in independent cohorts. We wanted to compare the role of routinely measured biomarkers of immunity, inflammation, and cellular damage with preexisting comorbidities in eight different machine-learning models to predict mortality, and evaluate their performance in an independent population. We recruited and followed-up consecutive adult patients with SARS-Cov-2 infection in two different Italian hospitals. We predicted 60-day mortality in one cohort (development dataset, n = 299 patients, of which 80% was allocated to the development dataset and 20% to the training set) and retested the models in the second cohort (external validation dataset, n = 402).

Demographic, clinical, and laboratory features at admission, treatments and disease outcomes were significantly different between the two cohorts. Notably, significant differences were observed for %lymphocytes (p < 0.05), international-normalized-ratio (p < 0.01), platelets, alanine-aminotransferase, creatinine (all p < 0.001). The primary outcome (60-day mortality) was 29.10% (n = 87) in the development dataset, and 39.55% (n = 159) in the external validation dataset. The performance of the 8 tested models on the external validation dataset were similar to that of the holdout test dataset, indicating that the models capture the key predictors of mortality. The shap analysis in both datasets showed that age, immune features (%lymphocytes, platelets) and LDH substantially impacted on all models' predictions, while creatinine and CRP varied among the different models. The model with the better performance was model 8 (60-day mortality AUROC 0.83 ± 0.06 in holdout test set, 0.79 ± 0.02 in external validation dataset). The features that had the greatest impact on this model's prediction were age, LDH, platelets, and %lymphocytes, more than comorbidities or inflammation markers, and these findings were highly consistent in both datasets, likely reflecting the virus effect at the very beginning of the disease.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
42 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信