Search

Collaborative efforts in artificial intelligence (AI) are increasingly common between high-income countries (HICs) and low- to middle-income countries (LMICs). Given the resource limitations often encountered by LMICs, collaboration becomes crucial for pooling resources, expertise, and knowledge. Despite the apparent advantages, ensuring the fairness and equity of these collaborative models is essential, especially considering the distinct differences between LMIC and HIC hospitals. In this study, we show that collaborative AI approaches can lead to divergent performance outcomes across HIC and LMIC settings, particularly in the presence of data imbalances. Through a real-world COVID-19 screening case study, we demonstrate that implementing algorithmic-level bias mitigation methods significantly improves outcome fairness between HIC and LMIC sites while maintaining high diagnostic sensitivity. We compare our results against previous benchmarks, utilizing datasets from four independent United Kingdom Hospitals and one Vietnamese hospital, representing HIC and LMIC settings, respectively., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objectives: Despite being prioritized during initial COVID-19 vaccine rollout, vulnerable individuals at high risk of severe COVID-19 (hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, or death) remain underrepresented in vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies. The RAVEN cohort study (NCT05047822) assessed AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCov-19) two-dose primary series VE in vulnerable populations., Methods: Using the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Informatics Digital Hub, linked to secondary care, death registration, and COVID-19 datasets in England, COVID-19 outcomes in 2021 were compared in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals matched on age, sex, region, and multimorbidity., Results: Over 4.5 million AZD1222 recipients were matched (mean follow-up ∼5 months); 68% were ≥50 years, 57% had high multimorbidity. Overall, high VE against severe COVID-19 was demonstrated, with lower VE observed in vulnerable populations. VE against hospitalization was higher in the lowest multimorbidity quartile (91.1%; 95% CI: 90.1, 92.0) than the highest quartile (80.4%; 79.7, 81.1), and among individuals ≥65 years, higher in the 'fit' (86.2%; 84.5, 87.6) than the frailest (71.8%; 69.3, 74.2). VE against hospitalization was lowest in immunosuppressed individuals (64.6%; 60.7, 68.1)., Conclusions: Based on integrated and comprehensive UK health data, overall population-level VE with AZD1222 was high. VEs were notably lower in vulnerable groups, particularly the immunosuppressed., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Oxford University has entered into a partnership with AstraZeneca for the development of COVID-19 vaccines. KS, LC, MO, ST, SV, TM, TNT, and WM are employees of AstraZeneca and may own stock/shares. AJP was a member of the World Health Organization’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization until January 2022 and remains Chair of the UK Department of Health and Social Care's Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) but does not participate in the JCVI COVID-19 committee. AJP also reports providing advice to Shionogi on COVID-19, and funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), AstraZeneca, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome, the Medical Research Council, the Serum Institute of India, and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI); and being a contributor to the intellectual property licensed by Oxford University Innovation to AstraZeneca. DAC reports consulting fees from Oxford University Consulting, Bristol Myers Squibb, and grants from UK Research and Innovation, Wellcome Trust, NIHR, Hong Kong ITC, AstraZeneca, and Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK); and patents held by Oxford University Innovation. JD is an employee at Momentum data and may own stocks/shares. FDRH acknowledges support as Director of the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford Thames Valley and Theme Lead of the NIHR Oxford University Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre. He also reports fees or expenses for speaking or consultancy from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, and Novartis. GJ reports ownership of GSK stocks/shares and honoraria form AstraZeneca. SdeL reports advisory board membership for AstraZeneca, GSK, Sanofi, and Seqirus (fees paid to University); and receiving university research grants from AstraZeneca, GSK, Sanofi, Seqirus, and Takeda. ST reports ownership of GSK stocks/shares. UH is an employee at Oxford University and reports membership on a Janssen advisory committee, funding from Seqirus for podcasts, and research funding from Seqirus and AstraZeneca. WH resorts partial salary funding from AstraZeneca-sponsored research grants. AD, AF, DK, KST, MF, MJ, RB, RW, SNA, and XF declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Our understanding of the global scale of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection remains incomplete: Routine surveillance data underestimate infection and cannot infer on population immunity; there is a predominance of asymptomatic infections, and uneven access to diagnostics. We meta-analyzed SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies, standardized to those described in the World Health Organization's Unity protocol (WHO Unity) for general population seroepidemiological studies, to estimate the extent of population infection and seropositivity to the virus 2 years into the pandemic., Methods and Findings: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, preprints, and grey literature for SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence published between January 1, 2020 and May 20, 2022. The review protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020183634). We included general population cross-sectional and cohort studies meeting an assay quality threshold (90% sensitivity, 97% specificity; exceptions for humanitarian settings). We excluded studies with an unclear or closed population sample frame. Eligible studies-those aligned with the WHO Unity protocol-were extracted and critically appraised in duplicate, with risk of bias evaluated using a modified Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. We meta-analyzed seroprevalence by country and month, pooling to estimate regional and global seroprevalence over time; compared seroprevalence from infection to confirmed cases to estimate underascertainment; meta-analyzed differences in seroprevalence between demographic subgroups such as age and sex; and identified national factors associated with seroprevalence using meta-regression. We identified 513 full texts reporting 965 distinct seroprevalence studies (41% low- and middle-income countries [LMICs]) sampling 5,346,069 participants between January 2020 and April 2022, including 459 low/moderate risk of bias studies with national/subnational scope in further analysis. By September 2021, global SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence from infection or vaccination was 59.2%, 95% CI [56.1% to 62.2%]. Overall seroprevalence rose steeply in 2021 due to infection in some regions (e.g., 26.6% [24.6 to 28.8] to 86.7% [84.6% to 88.5%] in Africa in December 2021) and vaccination and infection in others (e.g., 9.6% [8.3% to 11.0%] in June 2020 to 95.9% [92.6% to 97.8%] in December 2021, in European high-income countries [HICs]). After the emergence of Omicron in March 2022, infection-induced seroprevalence rose to 47.9% [41.0% to 54.9%] in Europe HIC and 33.7% [31.6% to 36.0%] in Americas HIC. In 2021 Quarter Three (July to September), median seroprevalence to cumulative incidence ratios ranged from around 2:1 in the Americas and Europe HICs to over 100:1 in Africa (LMICs). Children 0 to 9 years and adults 60+ were at lower risk of seropositivity than adults 20 to 29 (p < 0.001 and p = 0.005, respectively). In a multivariable model using prevaccination data, stringent public health and social measures were associated with lower seroprevalence (p = 0.02). The main limitations of our methodology include that some estimates were driven by certain countries or populations being overrepresented., Conclusions: In this study, we observed that global seroprevalence has risen considerably over time and with regional variation; however, over one-third of the global population are seronegative to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Our estimates of infections based on seroprevalence far exceed reported Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. Quality and standardized seroprevalence studies are essential to inform COVID-19 response, particularly in resource-limited regions., Competing Interests: I have read the journal policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: RKA, MW, HW, ZL, XM, CC, MYL, DB, JP, MPC, ML, MS, GRD, NI, CZ, SP, HPR, TY, KCN, DK, SAA, ND, CD, NAD, EL, RKI, ASB, ELB, AS, JC and NB report grants from Canada’s COVID-19 Immunity Task Force through the Public Health Agency of Canada, and the Canadian Medical Association Joule Innovation Fund. RKA, MW, HW, ZL, CC, MYL, NB also report grants from the World Health Organisation and the Robert Koch Institute. RKA reports personal fees from the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Strategic Investment Fund, as well as equity in Alethea Medical (Outside the submitted work). MPC reports grants from McGill Interdisciplinary Initiative in Infection and Immunity and Canadian Institute of Health Research, and personal fees from GEn1E Lifesciences (Outside the submitted work), nplex biosciences (Outside the submitted work), Kanvas biosciences (Outside the submitted work). JP reports grants from MedImmune (Outside the submitted work) and Sanofi-Pasteur (Outside the submitted work), grants and personal fees from Merck (Outside the submitted work) and AbbVie (Outside the submitted work), and personal fees from AstraZeneca (Outside the submitted work). DB reports grants from the World Health Organization, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada (Outside the submitted work), Institute national d excellence en sante et service sociaux (Outside the submitted work), and personal fees from McGill University Health Centre (Outside the submitted work) and Public Health Agency of Canada (Outside the submitted work). CC reports funding from Sanofi Pasteur (Outside of the submitted work). TY reports working for Health Canada as a part-time Senior Policy Analyst with the COVID-19 Testing and Screening Expert Panel, from Nov 2020-Jun 2021 (Outside of the submitted work). TH reports funding recieved from the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for Columbia University (Outside of the submitted work). Author HCL declares receiving funding as a WHO consultant from WHO Solidarity Response Fund and the German Federal Ministry of Health COVID-19 Research and Development., (Copyright: © 2022 Bergeri et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Uncertainty in patients' COVID-19 status contributes to treatment delays, nosocomial transmission, and operational pressures in hospitals. However, the typical turnaround time for laboratory PCR remains 12-24 h and lateral flow devices (LFDs) have limited sensitivity. Previously, we have shown that artificial intelligence-driven triage (CURIAL-1.0) can provide rapid COVID-19 screening using clinical data routinely available within 1 h of arrival to hospital. Here, we aimed to improve the time from arrival to the emergency department to the availability of a result, do external and prospective validation, and deploy a novel laboratory-free screening tool in a UK emergency department., Methods: We optimised our previous model, removing less informative predictors to improve generalisability and speed, developing the CURIAL-Lab model with vital signs and readily available blood tests (full blood count [FBC]; urea, creatinine, and electrolytes; liver function tests; and C-reactive protein) and the CURIAL-Rapide model with vital signs and FBC alone. Models were validated externally for emergency admissions to University Hospitals Birmingham, Bedfordshire Hospitals, and Portsmouth Hospitals University National Health Service (NHS) trusts, and prospectively at Oxford University Hospitals, by comparison with PCR testing. Next, we compared model performance directly against LFDs and evaluated a combined pathway that triaged patients who had either a positive CURIAL model result or a positive LFD to a COVID-19-suspected clinical area. Lastly, we deployed CURIAL-Rapide alongside an approved point-of-care FBC analyser to provide laboratory-free COVID-19 screening at the John Radcliffe Hospital (Oxford, UK). Our primary improvement outcome was time-to-result, and our performance measures were sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC)., Findings: 72 223 patients met eligibility criteria across the four validating hospital groups, in a total validation period spanning Dec 1, 2019, to March 31, 2021. CURIAL-Lab and CURIAL-Rapide performed consistently across trusts (AUROC range 0·858-0·881, 95% CI 0·838-0·912, for CURIAL-Lab and 0·836-0·854, 0·814-0·889, for CURIAL-Rapide), achieving highest sensitivity at Portsmouth Hospitals (84·1%, Wilson's 95% CI 82·5-85·7, for CURIAL-Lab and 83·5%, 81·8-85·1, for CURIAL-Rapide) at specificities of 71·3% (70·9-71·8) for CURIAL-Lab and 63·6% (63·1-64·1) for CURIAL-Rapide. When combined with LFDs, model predictions improved triage sensitivity from 56·9% (51·7-62·0) for LFDs alone to 85·6% with CURIAL-Lab (81·6-88·9; AUROC 0·925) and 88·2% with CURIAL-Rapide (84·4-91·1; AUROC 0·919), thereby reducing missed COVID-19 cases by 65% with CURIAL-Lab and 72% with CURIAL-Rapide. For the prospective deployment of CURIAL-Rapide, 520 patients were enrolled for point-of-care FBC analysis between Feb 18 and May 10, 2021, of whom 436 received confirmatory PCR testing and ten (2·3%) tested positive. Median time from arrival to a CURIAL-Rapide result was 45 min (IQR 32-64), 16 min (26·3%) sooner than with LFDs (61 min, 37-99; log-rank p<0·0001), and 6 h 52 min (90·2%) sooner than with PCR (7 h 37 min, 6 h 5 min to 15 h 39 min; p<0·0001). Classification performance was high, with sensitivity of 87·5% (95% CI 52·9-97·8), specificity of 85·4% (81·3-88·7), and negative predictive value of 99·7% (98·2-99·9). CURIAL-Rapide correctly excluded infection for 31 (58·5%) of 53 patients who were triaged by a physician to a COVID-19-suspected area but went on to test negative by PCR., Interpretation: Our findings show the generalisability, performance, and real-world operational benefits of artificial intelligence-driven screening for COVID-19 over standard-of-care in emergency departments. CURIAL-Rapide provided rapid, laboratory-free screening when used with near-patient FBC analysis, and was able to reduce the number of patients who tested negative for COVID-19 but were triaged to COVID-19-suspected areas., Funding: The Wellcome Trust, University of Oxford Medical and Life Sciences Translational Fund., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests DWE reports personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. DAC reports personal fees from Oxford University Innovation, BioBeats, and Sensyne Health; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Bristol Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Delays in patient flow and a shortage of hospital beds are commonplace in hospitals during periods of increased infection incidence, such as seasonal influenza and the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of this study was to develop and evaluate the efficacy of machine learning methods at identifying and ranking the real-time readiness of individual patients for discharge, with the goal of improving patient flow within hospitals during periods of crisis., Methods and Performance: Electronic Health Record data from Oxford University Hospitals was used to train independent models to classify and rank patients' real-time readiness for discharge within 24 hours, for patient subsets according to the nature of their admission (planned or emergency) and the number of days elapsed since their admission. A strategy for the use of the models' inference is proposed, by which the model makes predictions for all patients in hospital and ranks them in order of likelihood of discharge within the following 24 hours. The 20% of patients with the highest ranking are considered as candidates for discharge and would therefore expect to have a further screening by a clinician to confirm whether they are ready for discharge or not. Performance was evaluated in terms of positive predictive value (PPV), i.e., the proportion of these patients who would have been correctly deemed as 'ready for discharge' after having the second screening by a clinician. Performance was high for patients on their first day of admission (PPV = 0.96/0.94 for planned/emergency patients respectively) but dropped for patients further into a longer admission (PPV = 0.66/0.71 for planned/emergency patients still in hospital after 7 days)., Conclusion: We demonstrate the efficacy of machine learning methods at making operationally focused, next-day discharge readiness predictions for all individual patients in hospital at any given moment and propose a strategy for their use within a decision-support tool during crisis periods., Competing Interests: DWE has received lecture fees and conference expenses from Gilead. No other author has a conflict of interest to declare. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Background: Many studies report the seroprevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies. We aimed to synthesize seroprevalence data to better estimate the level and distribution of SARS-CoV-2 infection, identify high-risk groups, and inform public health decision making., Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched publication databases, preprint servers, and grey literature sources for seroepidemiological study reports, from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020. We included studies that reported a sample size, study date, location, and seroprevalence estimate. We corrected estimates for imperfect test accuracy with Bayesian measurement error models, conducted meta-analysis to identify demographic differences in the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, and meta-regression to identify study-level factors associated with seroprevalence. We compared region-specific seroprevalence data to confirmed cumulative incidence. PROSPERO: CRD42020183634., Results: We identified 968 seroprevalence studies including 9.3 million participants in 74 countries. There were 472 studies (49%) at low or moderate risk of bias. Seroprevalence was low in the general population (median 4.5%, IQR 2.4-8.4%); however, it varied widely in specific populations from low (0.6% perinatal) to high (59% persons in assisted living and long-term care facilities). Median seroprevalence also varied by Global Burden of Disease region, from 0.6% in Southeast Asia, East Asia and Oceania to 19.5% in Sub-Saharan Africa (p<0.001). National studies had lower seroprevalence estimates than regional and local studies (p<0.001). Compared to Caucasian persons, Black persons (prevalence ratio [RR] 3.37, 95% CI 2.64-4.29), Asian persons (RR 2.47, 95% CI 1.96-3.11), Indigenous persons (RR 5.47, 95% CI 1.01-32.6), and multi-racial persons (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.60-2.24) were more likely to be seropositive. Seroprevalence was higher among people ages 18-64 compared to 65 and over (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.11-1.45). Health care workers in contact with infected persons had a 2.10 times (95% CI 1.28-3.44) higher risk compared to health care workers without known contact. There was no difference in seroprevalence between sex groups. Seroprevalence estimates from national studies were a median 18.1 times (IQR 5.9-38.7) higher than the corresponding SARS-CoV-2 cumulative incidence, but there was large variation between Global Burden of Disease regions from 6.7 in South Asia to 602.5 in Sub-Saharan Africa. Notable methodological limitations of serosurveys included absent reporting of test information, no statistical correction for demographics or test sensitivity and specificity, use of non-probability sampling and use of non-representative sample frames., Discussion: Most of the population remains susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Public health measures must be improved to protect disproportionately affected groups, including racial and ethnic minorities, until vaccine-derived herd immunity is achieved. Improvements in serosurvey design and reporting are needed for ongoing monitoring of infection prevalence and the pandemic response., Competing Interests: MPC reports personal fees from Gen1E Lifesciences (as a member of the scientific advisory board) and personal fees from nplex biosciences (as a member of the scientific advisory board), both outside the submitted work. JP reports grants and personal fees from Seegene and AbbVie, grants from MedImmune and Sanofi Pasteur, outside the submitted work. RKA, NB, and TY report grants from the World Health Organization and the Canadian Medical Association for SARS-CoV-2 serosurveillance, both outside the submitted work. DAC reports personal fees from Biobeats (https://www.bio-beat.com/), and Sensyne Health during the conduct of the study. There are no patents, products in development or marketed products associated with this research to declare. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Because of the rapid and serious nature of acute cardiovascular disease (CVD) especially ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), a leading cause of death worldwide, prompt diagnosis and treatment is of crucial importance to reduce both mortality and morbidity. During a pandemic such as coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), it is critical to balance cardiovascular emergencies with infectious risk. In this work, we recommend using wearable device based mobile health (mHealth) as an early screening and real-time monitoring tool to address this balance and facilitate remote monitoring to tackle this unprecedented challenge. This recommendation may help to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of acute CVD patient management while reducing infection risk.

Background: The early clinical course of COVID-19 can be difficult to distinguish from other illnesses driving presentation to hospital. However, viral-specific PCR testing has limited sensitivity and results can take up to 72 h for operational reasons. We aimed to develop and validate two early-detection models for COVID-19, screening for the disease among patients attending the emergency department and the subset being admitted to hospital, using routinely collected health-care data (laboratory tests, blood gas measurements, and vital signs). These data are typically available within the first hour of presentation to hospitals in high-income and middle-income countries, within the existing laboratory infrastructure., Methods: We trained linear and non-linear machine learning classifiers to distinguish patients with COVID-19 from pre-pandemic controls, using electronic health record data for patients presenting to the emergency department and admitted across a group of four teaching hospitals in Oxfordshire, UK (Oxford University Hospitals). Data extracted included presentation blood tests, blood gas testing, vital signs, and results of PCR testing for respiratory viruses. Adult patients (>18 years) presenting to hospital before Dec 1, 2019 (before the first COVID-19 outbreak), were included in the COVID-19-negative cohort; those presenting to hospital between Dec 1, 2019, and April 19, 2020, with PCR-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection were included in the COVID-19-positive cohort. Patients who were subsequently admitted to hospital were included in their respective COVID-19-negative or COVID-19-positive admissions cohorts. Models were calibrated to sensitivities of 70%, 80%, and 90% during training, and performance was initially assessed on a held-out test set generated by an 80:20 split stratified by patients with COVID-19 and balanced equally with pre-pandemic controls. To simulate real-world performance at different stages of an epidemic, we generated test sets with varying prevalences of COVID-19 and assessed predictive values for our models. We prospectively validated our 80% sensitivity models for all patients presenting or admitted to the Oxford University Hospitals between April 20 and May 6, 2020, comparing model predictions with PCR test results., Findings: We assessed 155 689 adult patients presenting to hospital between Dec 1, 2017, and April 19, 2020. 114 957 patients were included in the COVID-negative cohort and 437 in the COVID-positive cohort, for a full study population of 115 394 patients, with 72 310 admitted to hospital. With a sensitive configuration of 80%, our emergency department (ED) model achieved 77·4% sensitivity and 95·7% specificity (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC] 0·939) for COVID-19 among all patients attending hospital, and the admissions model achieved 77·4% sensitivity and 94·8% specificity (AUROC 0·940) for the subset of patients admitted to hospital. Both models achieved high negative predictive values (NPV; >98·5%) across a range of prevalences (≤5%). We prospectively validated our models for all patients presenting and admitted to Oxford University Hospitals in a 2-week test period. The ED model (3326 patients) achieved 92·3% accuracy (NPV 97·6%, AUROC 0·881), and the admissions model (1715 patients) achieved 92·5% accuracy (97·7%, 0·871) in comparison with PCR results. Sensitivity analyses to account for uncertainty in negative PCR results improved apparent accuracy (ED model 95·1%, admissions model 94·1%) and NPV (ED model 99·0%, admissions model 98·5%)., Interpretation: Our models performed effectively as a screening test for COVID-19, excluding the illness with high-confidence by use of clinical data routinely available within 1 h of presentation to hospital. Our approach is rapidly scalable, fitting within the existing laboratory testing infrastructure and standard of care of hospitals in high-income and middle-income countries., Funding: Wellcome Trust, University of Oxford, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)