Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34633425›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2021

A Continuously Benchmarked and Crowdsourced Challenge for Rapid Development and Evaluation of Models to Predict COVID-19 Diagnosis and Hospitalization.

Yao Yan, Thomas Schaffter, Timothy Bergquist, Thomas Yu, Justin Prosser, Zafer Aydin, Amhar Jabeer, Ivan Brugere, Jifan Gao, Guanhua Chen and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Machine learning in healthcare citizen science: A scoping review.International journal of medical informatics · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Machine learning in rare disease.Nature methods · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

Yao YanSage Bionetworks, Seattle, Washington.
Thomas SchaffterSage Bionetworks, Seattle, Washington.
Timothy BergquistSage Bionetworks, Seattle, Washington.
Thomas YuSage Bionetworks, Seattle, Washington.
Justin ProsserInstitute of Translational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle.
Zafer AydinDepartment of Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Abdullah Gul University, Kayseri, Turkey.
Amhar JabeerDepartment of Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Abdullah Gul University, Kayseri, Turkey.
Ivan BrugereDepartment of Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago.
Jifan GaoDepartment of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison.
Guanhua ChenDepartment of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison.
Jason CauseyComputer Science Department, College of Engineering and Computer Science, Arkansas State University, Jonesboro.
Yuxin YaoDepartment of Computer Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Kevin BrysonDepartment of Computer Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Dustin R LongDivision of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle.
Jeffrey G JarvikThe University of Washington Clinical Learning, Evidence And Research Center for Musculoskeletal Disorders, Seattle.
Christoph I LeeDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle.
Adam WilcoxDepartment of Biomedical Informatics and Medical Education, University of Washington, Seattle.
Justin GuinneySage Bionetworks, Seattle, Washington.
Sean MooneyDepartment of Biomedical Informatics and Medical Education, University of Washington, Seattle.
DREAM Challenge Consortium

Funding

Transform Dissemination and Implementation Science in CTSA ProgramsUL1TR002319 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI John K. Amory · 2017 to 2026
$100.0M
CD2H - The National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) IDeA CTR CollaborationU24TR002306 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI CHUTE, CHRISTOPHER G, EICHMANN, DAVID A. · 2017 to 2021
$28.9M
UW Core Center for Clinical Research of Musculoskeletal ConditionsP30AR072572 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI JEFFREY G JARVIK, Pradeep Suri · 2017 to 2026
$8.3M
Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine Training GrantT32GM086270 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Tonya M Palermo · 2009 to 2026
$4.3M
NCATS NIH HHS U24 TR002306NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002319NIAMS NIH HHS P30 AR072572NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM086270
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Machine learning could be used to predict the likelihood of diagnosis and severity of illness. Lack of COVID-19 patient data has hindered the data science community in developing models to aid in the response to the pandemic. Objectives: To describe the rapid development and evaluation of clinical algorithms to predict COVID-19 diagnosis and hospitalization using patient data by citizen scientists, provide an unbiased assessment of model performance, and benchmark model performance on subgroups. Design, Setting, and Participants: This diagnostic and prognostic study operated a continuous, crowdsourced challenge using a model-to-data approach to securely enable the use of regularly updated COVID-19 patient data from the University of Washington by participants from May 6 to December 23, 2020. A postchallenge analysis was conducted from December 24, 2020, to April 7, 2021, to assess the generalizability of models on the cumulative data set as well as subgroups stratified by age, sex, race, and time of COVID-19 test. By December 23, 2020, this challenge engaged 482 participants from 90 teams and 7 countries. Main Outcomes and Measures: Machine learning algorithms used patient data and output a score that represented the probability of patients receiving a positive COVID-19 test result or being hospitalized within 21 days after receiving a positive COVID-19 test result. Algorithms were evaluated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and area under the precision recall curve (AUPRC) scores. Ensemble models aggregating models from the top challenge teams were developed and evaluated. Results: In the analysis using the cumulative data set, the best performance for COVID-19 diagnosis prediction was an AUROC of 0.776 (95% CI, 0.775-0.777) and an AUPRC of 0.297, and for hospitalization prediction, an AUROC of 0.796 (95% CI, 0.794-0.798) and an AUPRC of 0.188. Analysis on top models submitting to the challenge showed consistently better model performance on the female group than the male group. Among all age groups, the best performance was obtained for the 25- to 49-year age group, and the worst performance was obtained for the group aged 17 years or younger. Conclusions and Relevance: In this diagnostic and prognostic study, models submitted by citizen scientists achieved high performance for the prediction of COVID-19 testing and hospitalization outcomes. Evaluation of challenge models on demographic subgroups and prospective data revealed performance discrepancies, providing insights into the potential bias and limitations in the models.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBenchmarkingClinical Decision RulesCrowdsourcingMachine LearningAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overArea Under CurveChildChild, PreschoolCOVID-19COVID-19 TestingFemaleHospitalization

Identifiers

PMID34633425
PMCPMC8506231

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.