ArticleiScience2021
Screening of COVID-19 cases through a Bayesian network symptoms model and psychophysical olfactory test.
Article in iScience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Coupling between neural oscillations and white matter integrity reveals cognitive computational profiles following COVID-19.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Patients recovering from COVID-19 who presented with anosmia during their acute episode have behavioral, functional, and structural brain alterations.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Tool for Estimating the Probability of Having COVID-19 With 1 or More Negative RT-PCR Results.Open forum infectious diseases · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The sudden loss of smell is among the earliest and most prevalent symptoms of COVID-19 when measured with a clinical psychophysical test. Research has shown the potential impact of frequent screening for olfactory dysfunction, but existing tests are expensive and time consuming. We developed a low-cost ($0.50/test) rapid psychophysical olfactory test (KOR) for frequent testing and a model-based COVID-19 screening framework using a Bayes Network symptoms model. We trained and validated the model on two samples: suspected COVID-19 cases in five healthcare centers (n = 926; 33% prevalence, 309 RT-PCR confirmed) and healthy miners (n = 1,365; 1.1% prevalence, 15 RT-PCR confirmed). The model predicted COVID-19 status with 76% and 96% accuracy in the healthcare and miners samples, respectively (healthcare: AUC = 0.79 [0.75-0.82], sensitivity: 59%, specificity: 87%; miners: AUC = 0.71 [0.63-0.79], sensitivity: 40%, specificity: 97%, at 0.50 infection probability threshold). Our results highlight the potential for low-cost, frequent, accessible, routine COVID-19 testing to support society's reopening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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 OpenQuestion graph.