ArticlePloS one2022
Comparative performance of two automated machine learning platforms for COVID-19 detection by MALDI-TOF-MS.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Extreme gradient boosting using conventional parameters accurately predicts insulin sensitivity in young and middle-aged Japanese persons.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- AutoML-Driven Insights into Patient Outcomes and Emergency Care During Romania's First Wave of COVID-19.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Mass spectrometry in animal health laboratories: recent history, current applications, and future directions.Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc · 2024Review
- Using matrix assisted laser desorption ionisation mass spectrometry combined with machine learning for vaccine authenticity screening.NPJ vaccines · 2024Article
- The innovation of AI-based software in oral diseases: clinical-histopathological correlation diagnostic accuracy primary study.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Machine Learning to Identify Critical Biomarker Profiles in New SARS-CoV-2 Variants.Microorganisms · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The 2019 novel coronavirus infectious disease (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in an unsustainable need for diagnostic tests. Currently, molecular tests are the accepted standard for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Mass spectrometry (MS) enhanced by machine learning (ML) has recently been postulated to serve as a rapid, high-throughput, and low-cost alternative to molecular methods. Automated ML is a novel approach that could move mass spectrometry techniques beyond the confines of traditional laboratory settings. However, it remains unknown how different automated ML platforms perform for COVID-19 MS analysis. To this end, the goal of our study is to compare algorithms produced by two commercial automated ML platforms (Platforms A and B). Our study consisted of MS data derived from 361 subjects with molecular confirmation of COVID-19 status including SARS-CoV-2 variants. The top optimized ML model with respect to positive percent agreement (PPA) within Platforms A and B exhibited an accuracy of 94.9%, PPA of 100%, negative percent agreement (NPA) of 93%, and an accuracy of 91.8%, PPA of 100%, and NPA of 89%, respectively. These results illustrate the MS method's robustness against SARS-CoV-2 variants and highlight similarities and differences in automated ML platforms in producing optimal predictive algorithms for a given dataset.
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.