• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Clin Infect Dis . A SARS-CoV-2 Prediction Model from Standard Laboratory Tests

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Clin Infect Dis


. 2020 Aug 12;ciaa1175.
doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1175. Online ahead of print.
A SARS-CoV-2 Prediction Model from Standard Laboratory Tests


Vafa Bayat[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Steven Phelps[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Russell Ryono[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Chong Lee[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Hemal Parekh[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Joel Mewton[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Farshid Sedghi[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Payam Etminani[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Mark Holodniy[SUP] 7 8 9 [/SUP]



Affiliations

Abstract

Background: With the limited availability of testing for the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and concerns surrounding the accuracy of existing methods, other means of identifying patients are urgently needed. Previous studies showing a correlation between certain laboratory tests and diagnosis suggest an alternative method based on an ensemble of tests.
Methods: We have trained a machine learning model to analyze the correlation between SARS-CoV-2 test results and 20 routine laboratory tests collected within a 2-day period around the SARS-CoV-2 test date. We used the model to compare SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative patients.
Results: In a cohort of 75,991 veteran inpatients and outpatients who tested for SARS-CoV-2 in the months of March through July, 2020, 7,335 of whom were positive by RT-PCR or antigen testing, and who had at least 15 of 20 lab results within the window period, our model predicted the results of the SARS-CoV-2 test with a specificity of 86.8%, a sensitivity of 82.4%, and an overall accuracy of 86.4% (with a 95% confidence interval of [86.0%, 86.9%]).
Conclusions: While molecular-based and antibody tests remain the reference standard method for confirming a SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, their clinical sensitivity is not well known. The model described herein may provide a complementary method of determining SARS-CoV-2 infection status, based on a fully independent set of indicators, that can help confirm results from other tests as well as identify positive cases missed by molecular testing.

Keywords: Coronavirus; Machine Learning; Pneumonia; Polymerase Chain Reaction; human; viral.
 
Back
Top Bottom