ArticleViruses2022
Selective Electrochemical Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Using Deep Learning.
Article in Viruses, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Overview in Machine-Learning-Assisted Sensing Techniques for Monitoring COVID-19.Micromachines · 2026Review
- Deep Learning-Enhanced Nanozyme-Based Biosensors for Next-Generation Medical Diagnostics.Biosensors · 2025Review
- Advancements in SARS-CoV-2 Testing: Enhancing Accessibility through Machine Learning-Enhanced Biosensors.Micromachines · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
COVID-19 has been in the headlines for the past two years. Diagnosing this infection with minimal false rates is still an issue even with the advent of multiple rapid antigen tests. Enormous data are being collected every day that could provide insight into reducing the false diagnosis. Machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) could be the way forward to process these data and reduce the false diagnosis rates. In this study, ML and DL approaches have been applied to the data set collected using an ultra-fast COVID-19 diagnostic sensor (UFC-19). The ability of ML and DL to specifically detect SARS-CoV-2 signals against SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, Human CoV, and Influenza was investigated. UFC-19 is an electrochemical sensor that was used to test these virus samples and the obtained current response dataset was used to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 using different algorithms. Our results indicate that the convolution neural networks algorithm could diagnose SARS-CoV-2 samples with a sensitivity of 96.15%, specificity of 98.17%, and accuracy of 97.20%. Combining this DL model with the existing UFC-19 could selectively identify SARS-CoV-2 presence within two minutes.
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.