↓ Skip to main content

Deploying unsupervised clustering analysis to derive clinical phenotypes and risk factors associated with mortality risk in 2022 critically ill patients with COVID-19 in Spain

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, February 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
136 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Deploying unsupervised clustering analysis to derive clinical phenotypes and risk factors associated with mortality risk in 2022 critically ill patients with COVID-19 in Spain
Published in
Critical Care, February 2021
DOI 10.1186/s13054-021-03487-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alejandro Rodríguez, Manuel Ruiz-Botella, Ignacio Martín-Loeches, María Jimenez Herrera, Jordi Solé-Violan, Josep Gómez, María Bodí, Sandra Trefler, Elisabeth Papiol, Emili Díaz, Borja Suberviola, Montserrat Vallverdu, Eric Mayor-Vázquez, Antonio Albaya Moreno, Alfonso Canabal Berlanga, Miguel Sánchez, María del Valle Ortíz, Juan Carlos Ballesteros, Lorena Martín Iglesias, Judith Marín-Corral, Esther López Ramos, Virginia Hidalgo Valverde, Loreto Vidaur Vidaur Tello, Susana Sancho Chinesta, Francisco Javier Gonzáles de Molina, Sandra Herrero García, Carmen Carolina Sena Pérez, Juan Carlos Pozo Laderas, Raquel Rodríguez García, Angel Estella, Ricard Ferrer

Abstract

The identification of factors associated with Intensive Care Unit (ICU) mortality and derived clinical phenotypes in COVID-19 patients could help for a more tailored approach to clinical decision-making that improves prognostic outcomes. Prospective, multicenter, observational study of critically ill patients with confirmed COVID-19 disease and acute respiratory failure admitted from 63 ICUs in Spain. The objective was to utilize an unsupervised clustering analysis to derive clinical COVID-19 phenotypes and to analyze patient's factors associated with mortality risk. Patient features including demographics and clinical data at ICU admission were analyzed. Generalized linear models were used to determine ICU morality risk factors. The prognostic models were validated and their performance was measured using accuracy test, sensitivity, specificity and ROC curves. The database included a total of 2022 patients (mean age 64 [IQR 5-71] years, 1423 (70.4%) male, median APACHE II score (13 [IQR 10-17]) and SOFA score (5 [IQR 3-7]) points. The ICU mortality rate was 32.6%. Of the 3 derived phenotypes, the A (mild) phenotype (537; 26.7%) included older age (< 65 years), fewer abnormal laboratory values and less development of complications, B (moderate) phenotype (623, 30.8%) had similar characteristics of A phenotype but were more likely to present shock. The C (severe) phenotype was the most common (857; 42.5%) and was characterized by the interplay of older age (> 65 years), high severity of illness and a higher likelihood of development shock. Crude ICU mortality was 20.3%, 25% and 45.4% for A, B and C phenotype respectively. The ICU mortality risk factors and model performance differed between whole population and phenotype classifications. The presented machine learning model identified three clinical phenotypes that significantly correlated with host-response patterns and ICU mortality. Different risk factors across the whole population and clinical phenotypes were observed which may limit the application of a "one-size-fits-all" model in practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 136 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 15%
Student > Master 15 11%
Student > Bachelor 15 11%
Professor 9 7%
Other 8 6%
Other 29 21%
Unknown 40 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 8%
Computer Science 8 6%
Engineering 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 21 15%
Unknown 48 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 August 2021.
All research outputs
#5,288,816
of 25,387,668 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,420
of 6,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,854
of 557,742 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#80
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,387,668 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,555 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 557,742 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 123 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.