COWAVE: A labelled COVID-19 wave dataset for building predictive models.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Pradeep M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10368260 | biostudies-literature | 2023
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
COWAVE: A labelled COVID-19 wave dataset for building predictive models.
Pradeep Melpakkam M Raman Karthik K
PloS one 20230725 7
The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has posed a significant global challenge to healthcare systems. Every country has seen multiple waves of this disease, placing a considerable strain on healthcare resources. Across the world, the pandemic has motivated diligent data collection, with an enormous amount of data being available in the public domain. In this manuscript, we collate COVID-19 case data from around the world (available on the World Health Organization (WHO) website), and provide various def ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 is a rapidly emerging respiratory disease caused by SARS-CoV-2. Due to the rapid human-to-human transmission of SARS-CoV-2, many health care systems are at risk of exceeding their health care capacities, in particular in terms of SARS-CoV-2 tests, hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) beds, and mechanical ventilators. Predictive algorithms could potentially ease the strain on health care systems by identifying those who are most likely to receive a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, be hospitalized, or admitted to the ICU.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to develop, study, and evaluate clinical predictive models that estimate, using machine learning and based on routinely collected clinical data, which patients are likely to receive a positive SARS-CoV-2 test or require hospitalization or intensive care.MethodsUsing a systematic approach to model development and optimization, we trained and compared various types of machine learning models, including logistic regression, neural networks, support vector machines, random forests, and gradient boosting. To evaluate the developed models, we performed a retrospective evaluation on demographic, clinical, and blood analysis data from a cohort of 5644 patients. In addition, we determined which clinical features were predictive to what degree for each of the aforementioned clinical tasks using causal explanations.ResultsOur experimental results indicate that our predictive models identified patients that test positive for SARS-CoV-2 a priori at a sensitivity of 75% (95% CI 67%-81%) and a specificity of 49% (95% CI 46%-51%), patients who are SARS-CoV-2 positive that require hospitalization with 0.92 area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC; 95% CI 0.81-0.98), and patients who are SARS-CoV-2 positive that require critical care with 0.98 AUC (95% CI 0.95-1.00).ConclusionsOur results indicate that predictive models trained on routinely collected clinical data could be used to predict clinical pathways for COVID-19 and, therefore, help inform care and prioritize resources.
| S-EPMC7541040 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Forecasts and alternative scenarios of COVID-19 mortality have been critical inputs for pandemic response efforts, and decision-makers need information about predictive performance. We screen n = 386 public COVID-19 forecasting models, identifying n = 7 that are global in scope and provide public, date-versioned forecasts. We examine their predictive performance for mortality by weeks of extrapolation, world region, and estimation month. We additionally assess prediction of the timing of peak daily mortality. Globally, models released in October show a median absolute percent error (MAPE) of 7 to 13% at six weeks, reflecting surprisingly good performance despite the complexities of modelling human behavioural responses and government interventions. Median absolute error for peak timing increased from 8 days at one week of forecasting to 29 days at eight weeks and is similar for first and subsequent peaks. The framework and public codebase ( https://github.com/pyliu47/covidcompare ) can be used to compare predictions and evaluate predictive performance going forward.
| S-EPMC8110547 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Forecasts and alternative scenarios of COVID-19 mortality have been critical inputs into a range of policies and decision-makers need information about predictive performance. We identified n=386 public COVID-19 forecasting models and included n=8 that were global in scope and provided public, date-versioned forecasts. For each, we examined the median absolute percent error (MAPE) compared to subsequently observed mortality trends, stratified by weeks of extrapolation, world region, and month of model estimation. Models were also assessed for ability to predict the timing of peak daily mortality. The MAPE among models released in July rose from 1.8% at one week of extrapolation to 24.6% at twelve weeks. The MAPE at six weeks were the highest in Sub-Saharan Africa (34.8%), and the lowest in high-income countries (6.3%). At the global level, several models had about 10% MAPE at six weeks, showing surprisingly good performance despite the complexities of modelling human behavioural responses and government interventions. The framework and publicly available codebase presented here ( https://github.com/pyliu47/covidcompare ) can be routinely used to compare predictions and evaluate predictive performance in an ongoing fashion.
| S-EPMC7685335 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This dataset provides information related to the outbreak of COVID-19 disease in the United States, including data from each of 3142 US counties from the beginning of the outbreak (January 2020) until June 2021. This data is collected from many public online databases and includes the daily number of COVID-19 confirmed cases and deaths, as well as 46 features that may be relevant to the pandemic dynamics: demographic, geographic, climatic, traffic, public-health, social-distancing-policy adherence, and political characteristics of each county. We anticipate many researchers will use this dataset to train models that can predict the spread of COVID-19 and to identify the key driving factors.
| S-EPMC8431837 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVarious mathematical models were published to predict the epidemiological consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. This systematic review has studied the initial epidemiological models.MethodsArticles published from January to June 2020 were extracted from databases using search strings and those peer-reviewed with full text in English were included in the study. They were analysed as to whether they made definite predictions in terms of time and numbers, or contained only mathematical assumptions and open-ended predictions. Factors such as early vs. late prediction models, long-term vs. curve-fitting models and comparisons based on modelling techniques were analysed in detail.ResultsAmong 56,922 hits in 05 databases, screening yielded 434 abstracts, of which 72 articles were included. Predictive models comprised over 70% (51/72) of the articles, with susceptible, exposed, infectious and recovered (SEIR) being the commonest type (mean duration of prediction being 3 months). Common predictions were regarding cumulative cases (44/72, 61.1%), time to reach total numbers (41/72, 56.9%), peak numbers (22/72, 30.5%), time to peak (24/72, 33.3%), hospital utilisation (7/72, 9.7%) and effect of lockdown and NPIs (50/72, 69.4%). The commonest countries for which models were predicted were China followed by USA, South Korea, Japan and India. Models were published by various professionals including Engineers (12.5%), Mathematicians (9.7%), Epidemiologists (11.1%) and Physicians (9.7%) with a third (32.9%) being the result of collaborative efforts between two or more professions.ConclusionThere was a wide diversity in the type of models, duration of prediction and the variable that they predicted, with SEIR model being the commonest type.
| S-EPMC8313025 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe mathematical modelling of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic has been attempted by a wide range of researchers from the very beginning of cases in India. Initial analysis of available models revealed large variations in scope, assumptions, predictions, course, effect of interventions, effect on health-care services, and so on. Thus, a rapid review was conducted for narrative synthesis and to assess correlation between predicted and actual values of cases in India.MethodsA comprehensive, two-step search strategy was adopted, wherein the databases such as Medline, google scholar, MedRxiv, and BioRxiv were searched. Later, hand searching for the articles and contacting known modelers for unpublished models was resorted. The data from the included studies were extracted by the two investigators independently and checked by third researcher.ResultsBased on the literature search, 30 articles were included in this review. As narrative synthesis, data from the studies were summarized in terms of assumptions, model used, predictions, main recommendations, and findings. The Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) between predicted and actual values (n = 20) was 0.7 (p = 0.002) with R2 = 0.49. For Susceptible, Infected, Recovered (SIR) and its variant models (n = 16) 'r' was 0.65 (p = 0.02). The correlation for long-term predictions could not be assessed due to paucity of information.ConclusionReview has shown the importance of assumptions and strong correlation between short-term projections but uncertainties for long-term predictions. Thus, short-term predictions may be revised as more and more data become available. The assumptions too need to expand and firm up as the pandemic evolves.
| S-EPMC7298493 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although some studies tried to identify risk factors for COVID-19, the evidence comparing COVID-19 and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is inconclusive, and CAP is the most common pneumonia with similar symptoms as COVID-19. We conducted a case-control study with 35 routine-collected clinical indicators and demographic factors to identify predictors for COVID-19 with CAP as controls. We randomly split the dataset into a training set (70%) and testing set (30%). We built Explainable Boosting Machine to select the important factors and built a decision tree on selected variables to interpret their relationships. The top five individual predictors of COVID-19 are albumin, total bilirubin, monocyte count, alanine aminotransferase, and percentage of monocyte with the importance scores ranging from 0.078 to 0.567. The top systematic predictors for COVID-19 are liver function, monocyte increasing, plasma protein, granulocyte, and renal function (importance scores ranging 0.009-0.096). We identified five combinations of important indicators to screen COVID-19 patients from CAP patients with differentiating abilities ranging 83.3-100%. An online predictive tool for our model was published. Certain clinical indicators collected routinely from most hospitals could help screen and distinguish COVID-19 from CAP. While further verification is needed, our findings and predictive tool could help screen suspected COVID-19 cases.
| S-EPMC9037972 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsIdentification of SARS-CoV-2-infected patients at high-risk of poor prognosis is crucial. We aimed to establish predictive models for COVID-19 pneumonia severity in hospitalized patients.MethodsRetrospective study of 430 patients admitted in Vall d'Hebron Hospital (Barcelona) between 03-12-2020 and 04-28-2020 due to COVID-19 pneumonia. Two models to identify the patients who required high-flow-oxygen-support were generated, one using baseline data and another with also follow-up analytical results. Calibration was performed by a 1000-bootstrap replication model.Results249 were male, mean age 57.9 years. Overall, 135 (31.4%) required high-flow-oxygen-support. The baseline predictive model showed a ROC of 0.800 based on: SpO2/FiO2 (adjusted Hazard Ratio-aHR = 8), chest x-ray (aHR = 4), prior immunosuppressive therapy (aHR = 4), obesity (aHR = 2), IL-6 (aHR = 2), platelets (aHR = 0.5). The cut-off of 11 presented a specificity of 94.8%. The second model included changes on the analytical parameters: ferritin (aHR = 7.5 if ≥200ng/mL) and IL-6 (aHR = 18 if ≥64pg/mL) plus chest x-ray (aHR = 2) showing a ROC of 0.877. The cut-off of 12 exhibited a negative predictive value of 92%.ConclusionsSpO2/FiO2 and chest x-ray on admission or changes on inflammatory parameters as IL-6 and ferritin allow us early identification of COVID-19 patients at risk of high-flow-oxygen-support that may benefit from a more intensive disease management.
| S-EPMC7769554 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe cause and symptoms of long COVID are poorly understood. It is challenging to predict whether a given COVID-19 patient will develop long COVID in the future.MethodsWe used electronic health record (EHR) data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative to predict the incidence of long COVID. We trained two machine learning (ML) models - logistic regression (LR) and random forest (RF). Features used to train predictors included symptoms and drugs ordered during acute infection, measures of COVID-19 treatment, pre-COVID comorbidities, and demographic information. We assigned the 'long COVID' label to patients diagnosed with the U09.9 ICD10-CM code. The cohorts included patients with (a) EHRs reported from data partners using U09.9 ICD10-CM code and (b) at least one EHR in each feature category. We analysed three cohorts: all patients (n = 2,190,579; diagnosed with long COVID = 17,036), inpatients (149,319; 3,295), and outpatients (2,041,260; 13,741).FindingsLR and RF models yielded median AUROC of 0.76 and 0.75, respectively. Ablation study revealed that drugs had the highest influence on the prediction task. The SHAP method identified age, gender, cough, fatigue, albuterol, obesity, diabetes, and chronic lung disease as explanatory features. Models trained on data from one N3C partner and tested on data from the other partners had average AUROC of 0.75.InterpretationML-based classification using EHR information from the acute infection period is effective in predicting long COVID. SHAP methods identified important features for prediction. Cross-site analysis demonstrated the generalizability of the proposed methodology.FundingNCATS U24 TR002306, NCATS UL1 TR003015, Axle Informatics Subcontract: NCATS-P00438-B, NIH/NIDDK/OD, PSR2015-1720GVALE_01, G43C22001320007, and Director, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences of the U.S. Department of Energy Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.
| S-EPMC10494314 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBayesian models have been applied throughout the Covid-19 pandemic especially to model time series of case counts or deaths. Fewer examples exist of spatio-temporal modeling, even though the spatial spread of disease is a crucial factor in public health monitoring. The predictive capabilities of infectious disease models is also important.MethodsIn this study, the ability of Bayesian hierarchical models to recover different parts of the variation in disease counts is the focus. It is clear that different measures provide different views of behavior when models are fitted prospectively. Over a series of time horizons one step predictions have been generated and compared for different models (for case counts and death counts). These Bayesian SIR models were fitted using MCMC at 28 time horizons to mimic prospective prediction. A range of goodness of prediction measures were analyzed across the different time horizons.ResultsA particularly important result is that the peak intensity of case load is often under-estimated, while random spikes in case load can be mimicked using time dependent random effects. It is also clear that during the early wave of the pandemic simpler model forms are favored, but subsequently lagged spatial dependence models for cases are favored, even if the sophisticated models perform better overall.DiscussionThe models fitted mimic the situation where at a given time the history of the process is known but the future must be predicted based on the current evolution which has been observed. Using an overall 'best' model for prediction based on retrospective fitting of the complete pandemic waves is an assumption. However it is also clear that this case count model is well favored over other forms. During the first wave a simpler time series model predicts case counts better for counties than a spatially dependent one. The picture is more varied for morality.ConclusionsFrom a predictive point of view it is clear that spatio-temporal models applied to county level Covid-19 data within the US vary in how well they fit over time and also how well they predict future events. At different times, SIR case count models and also mortality models with cumulative counts perform better in terms of prediction. A fundamental result is that predictive capability of models varies over time and using the same model could lead to poor predictive performance. In addition it is clear that models addressing the spatial context for case counts (i.e. with lagged neighborhood terms) and cumulative case counts for mortality data are clearly better at modeling spatio-temporal data which is commonly available for the Covid-19 pandemic in different areas of the globe.
| S-EPMC10422743 | biostudies-literature