Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34825090›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2021

A statistical analysis of antigenic similarity among influenza A (H3N2) viruses.

Emmanuel S Adabor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

1 author.

Emmanuel S AdaborSchool of Technology, Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration, Accra, Ghana.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An accurate assessment of antigenic similarity between influenza viruses is important for vaccine strain recommendations and influenza surveillance. Due to the mechanisms that result in frequent changes in the antigenicities of strains, it is desirable to obtain an antigenic similarity measure that accounts for specific changes in strains that are of epidemiological importance in influenza. Empirically grounded statistical models best achieve this. In this study, an interpretable machine-learning model was developed using distinguishing features of antigenic variants to analyze antigenic similarity. The features comprised of cluster information, amino acid sequences located in known antigenic and receptor-binding sites of influenza A (H3N2). In order to assess validity of parameters, accuracy and relevance of model to vaccine effectiveness, the model was applied to influenza A (H3N2) viruses due to their abundant genetic data and epidemiological relevance to influenza surveillance. An application of the model revealed that all model parameters were statistically significant to determining antigenic similarity between strains. Furthermore, upon evaluating the model for predicting antigenic similarity between strains, it achieved 95% area under Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUC), 94% accuracy, 76% precision, 97% specificity, 68% sensitivity and a diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 83.19. Above all, the model was found to be strongly related to influenza vaccine effectiveness to indicate the correlation between vaccine effectiveness and antigenic similarity between vaccine and circulating strains in an epidemic. The study predicts probabilities of antigenic similarity and estimates changes in strains that lead to antigenic variants. A successful application of the methods presented in this study would complement the global efforts in influenza surveillance.

Indexed as

Antigenic similarityInfluenza virusMachine learningStatistical modelVaccine effectiveness

Identifiers

PMID34825090
PMCPMC8605065

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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 OpenQuestion graph.