4.7 Article

CT image visual quantitative evaluation and clinical classification of coronavirus disease (COVID-19)

期刊

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
卷 30, 期 8, 页码 4407-4416

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-06817-6

关键词

COVID-19; Tomography; X-ray computed; Quantitative evaluation; Classification

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To explore the relationship between the imaging manifestations and clinical classification of COVID-19. Methods We conducted a retrospective single-center study on patients with COVID-19 from Jan. 18, 2020 to Feb. 7, 2020 in Zhuhai, China. Patients were divided into 3 types based on Chinese guideline: mild (patients with minimal symptoms and negative CT findings), common, and severe-critical (patients with positive CT findings and different extent of clinical manifestations). CT visual quantitative evaluation was based on summing up the acute lung inflammatory lesions involving each lobe, which was scored as 0 (0%), 1 (1-25%), 2 (26-50%), 3 (51-75%), or 4 (76-100%), respectively. The total severity score (TSS) was reached by summing the five lobe scores. The consistency of two observers was evaluated. The TSS was compared with the clinical classification. ROC was used to test the diagnosis ability of TSS for severe-critical type. Results This study included 78 patients, 38 males and 40 females. There were 24 mild (30.8%), 46 common (59.0%), and 8 severe-critical (10.2%) cases, respectively. The median TSS of severe-critical-type group was significantly higher than common type (p < 0.001). The ICC value of the two observers was 0.976 (95% CI 0.962-0.985). ROC analysis showed the area under the curve (AUC) of TSS for diagnosing severe-critical type was 0.918. The TSS cutoff of 7.5 had 82.6% sensitivity and 100% specificity. Conclusions The proportion of clinical mild-type patients with COVID-19 was relatively high; CT was not suitable for independent screening tool. The CT visual quantitative analysis has high consistency and can reflect the clinical classification of COVID-19.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据