COVID-19 Chest CT Quantification: Triage and Prognostic Value in Different Ages.

IF 1.2 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Clinical Medicine & Research Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI:10.3121/cmr.2023.1772
Alireza Almasi Nokiani, Razieh Shahnazari, Mohammad Amin Abbasi, Farshad Divsalar, Marzieh Bayazidi, Azadeh Sadatnaseri
{"title":"COVID-19 Chest CT Quantification: Triage and Prognostic Value in Different Ages.","authors":"Alireza Almasi Nokiani,&nbsp;Razieh Shahnazari,&nbsp;Mohammad Amin Abbasi,&nbsp;Farshad Divsalar,&nbsp;Marzieh Bayazidi,&nbsp;Azadeh Sadatnaseri","doi":"10.3121/cmr.2023.1772","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> We evaluated the triage and prognostic performance of seven proposed computed tomography (CT)-severity score (CTSS) systems in two different age groups.<b>Design:</b> Retrospective study.<b>Setting:</b> COVID-19 pandemic.<b>Participants:</b> Admitted COVID-19, PCR-positive patients were included, excluding patients with heart failure and significant pre-existing pulmonary disease.<b>Methods:</b> Patients were divided into two age groups: ≥65 years and ≤64 years. Clinical data indicating disease severity at presentation and at peak disease severity were recorded. Initial CT images were scored by two radiologists according to seven CTSSs (CTSS1-CTSS7). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis for the performance of each CTSS in diagnosing severe/critical disease on admission (triage performance) and at peak disease severity (prognostic performance) was done for the whole cohort and each age group separately.<b>Results:</b> Included were 96 patients. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between the two radiologists scoring the CT scan images were good for all the CTSSs (ICC=0.764-0.837). In the whole cohort, all CTSSs showed an unsatisfactory area under the curve (AUC) in the ROC curve for triage, excluding CTSS2 (AUC=0.700), and all CTSSs showed acceptable AUCs for prognostic usage (0.759-0.781). In the older group (≥65 years; n=55), all CTSSs excluding CTSS6 showed excellent AUCs for triage (0.804-0.830), and CTSS6 was acceptable (AUC=0.796); all CTSSs showed excellent or outstanding AUCs for prognostication (0.859-0.919). In the younger group (≤64 years; n=41), all CTSSs showed unsatisfactory AUCs for triage (AUC=0.487-0.565) and prognostic usage (AUC=0.668-0.694), excluding CTSS6, showing marginally acceptable AUC for prognostic performance (0.700).<b>Conclusion:</b> Those CTSSs requiring more numerous segmentations, namely CTSS2, CTSS7, and CTSS5 showed the best ICCs; therefore, they are the best when comparison between two separate scores is needed. Irrespective of patients' age, CTSSs show minimal value in triage and acceptable prognostic value in COVID-19 patients. CTSS performance is highly variable in different age groups. It is excellent in those aged ≥65 years, but has little if any value in younger patients. Multicenter studies with larger sample size to evaluate results of this study should be conducted.</p>","PeriodicalId":47429,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Medicine & Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10153680/pdf/0210014.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Medicine & Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3121/cmr.2023.1772","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: We evaluated the triage and prognostic performance of seven proposed computed tomography (CT)-severity score (CTSS) systems in two different age groups.Design: Retrospective study.Setting: COVID-19 pandemic.Participants: Admitted COVID-19, PCR-positive patients were included, excluding patients with heart failure and significant pre-existing pulmonary disease.Methods: Patients were divided into two age groups: ≥65 years and ≤64 years. Clinical data indicating disease severity at presentation and at peak disease severity were recorded. Initial CT images were scored by two radiologists according to seven CTSSs (CTSS1-CTSS7). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis for the performance of each CTSS in diagnosing severe/critical disease on admission (triage performance) and at peak disease severity (prognostic performance) was done for the whole cohort and each age group separately.Results: Included were 96 patients. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between the two radiologists scoring the CT scan images were good for all the CTSSs (ICC=0.764-0.837). In the whole cohort, all CTSSs showed an unsatisfactory area under the curve (AUC) in the ROC curve for triage, excluding CTSS2 (AUC=0.700), and all CTSSs showed acceptable AUCs for prognostic usage (0.759-0.781). In the older group (≥65 years; n=55), all CTSSs excluding CTSS6 showed excellent AUCs for triage (0.804-0.830), and CTSS6 was acceptable (AUC=0.796); all CTSSs showed excellent or outstanding AUCs for prognostication (0.859-0.919). In the younger group (≤64 years; n=41), all CTSSs showed unsatisfactory AUCs for triage (AUC=0.487-0.565) and prognostic usage (AUC=0.668-0.694), excluding CTSS6, showing marginally acceptable AUC for prognostic performance (0.700).Conclusion: Those CTSSs requiring more numerous segmentations, namely CTSS2, CTSS7, and CTSS5 showed the best ICCs; therefore, they are the best when comparison between two separate scores is needed. Irrespective of patients' age, CTSSs show minimal value in triage and acceptable prognostic value in COVID-19 patients. CTSS performance is highly variable in different age groups. It is excellent in those aged ≥65 years, but has little if any value in younger patients. Multicenter studies with larger sample size to evaluate results of this study should be conducted.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
COVID-19胸部CT量化:不同年龄的分诊及预后价值。
目的:我们评估七种建议的计算机断层扫描(CT)-严重程度评分(CTSS)系统在两个不同年龄组的分类和预后表现。设计:回顾性研究。背景:COVID-19大流行。参与者:纳入入院的COVID-19, pcr阳性患者,排除心力衰竭和明显的既往肺部疾病患者。方法:将患者分为≥65岁和≤64岁两组。临床数据表明疾病严重程度在首发和疾病严重程度的高峰记录。初始CT图像由两名放射科医生根据7个ctss评分(CTSS1-CTSS7)。在整个队列和每个年龄组中分别对每个CTSS在入院时诊断严重/危重疾病(分诊表现)和疾病严重程度高峰时(预后表现)的表现进行受试者工作特征(ROC)分析。结果:纳入96例患者。两名放射科医师对CT扫描图像评分的类内相关系数(ICC)均较好(ICC=0.764-0.837)。在整个队列中,除CTSS2 (AUC=0.700)外,所有CTSSs在ROC曲线上的曲线下面积(AUC)均不理想,所有CTSSs的预后使用AUC均可接受(0.759-0.781)。老年组(≥65岁;n=55),除CTSS6外,所有CTSS6的AUC都很好(0.804-0.830),CTSS6是可以接受的(AUC=0.796);所有CTSSs的auc均为优或突出(0.859 ~ 0.919)。青壮年组(≤64岁;n=41),除CTSS6外,所有CTSSs的分类AUC (AUC=0.487-0.565)和预后使用AUC (AUC=0.668-0.694)均不理想,预后表现AUC略可接受(0.700)。结论:CTSS2、CTSS7、CTSS5分割次数较多的CTSS2、CTSS7、CTSS5的ICCs最好;因此,当需要对两个单独的分数进行比较时,它们是最好的。无论患者年龄如何,ctss在COVID-19患者的分诊价值最小,预后价值可接受。不同年龄组的CTSS表现差异很大。它在年龄≥65岁的患者中效果很好,但在年轻患者中几乎没有任何价值。需要更大样本量的多中心研究来评价本研究的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Medicine & Research
Clinical Medicine & Research MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
7.10%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Clinical Medicine & Research is a peer reviewed publication of original scientific medical research that is relevant to a broad audience of medical researchers and healthcare professionals. Articles are published quarterly in the following topics: -Medicine -Clinical Research -Evidence-based Medicine -Preventive Medicine -Translational Medicine -Rural Health -Case Reports -Epidemiology -Basic science -History of Medicine -The Art of Medicine -Non-Clinical Aspects of Medicine & Science
期刊最新文献
Crafting the Future Doctor: Mentorship in the First Year of Medical School. Diagnostic Accuracy of AI Algorithms in Aortic Stenosis Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Extensive Invasive Sinusitis Secondary to Streptococcus Intermedius Infection. Long COVID or Post-Acute Sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) in Children and Adolescents. Potential Application of Anti-Cyclic Citrullinated Peptide (Anti-CCP) for the Diagnosis of Periodontal Disease in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis with Cut-Off Determination.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1