ArticleScientific reports2023
A comprehensive analysis of gene expression profiling data in COVID-19 patients for discovery of specific and differential blood biomarker signatures.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Iranian Chronic Kidney Disease Biobank as a comprehensive resource for next-generation research: study design and protocol.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparative review of artificial intelligence for transcriptomic biomarker discovery in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Review
- Differential detection workflows for multi-sample single-cell RNA-seq data.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- Integrated multi-sample transcriptomic analysis of COVID-19 patients against controls using a bioinformatics pipeline.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Investigating the impact of feed-induced, subacute ruminal acidosis on rumen epimural transcriptome and metatranscriptome in young calves at 8- and 17-week of age.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
- Differential detection workflows for multi-sample single-cell RNA-seq data.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
COVID-19 is a newly recognized illness with a predominantly respiratory presentation. Although initial analyses have identified groups of candidate gene biomarkers for the diagnosis of COVID-19, they have yet to identify clinically applicable biomarkers, so we need disease-specific diagnostic biomarkers in biofluid and differential diagnosis in comparison with other infectious diseases. This can further increase knowledge of pathogenesis and help guide treatment. Eight transcriptomic profiles of COVID-19 infected versus control samples from peripheral blood (PB), lung tissue, nasopharyngeal swab and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) were considered. In order to find COVID-19 potential Specific Blood Differentially expressed genes (SpeBDs), we implemented a strategy based on finding shared pathways of peripheral blood and the most involved tissues in COVID-19 patients. This step was performed to filter blood DEGs with a role in the shared pathways. Furthermore, nine datasets of the three types of Influenza (H1N1, H3N2, and B) were used for the second step. Potential Differential Blood DEGs of COVID-19 versus Influenza (DifBDs) were found by extracting DEGs involved in only enriched pathways by SpeBDs and not by Influenza DEGs. Then in the third step, a machine learning method (a wrapper feature selection approach supervised by four classifiers of k-NN, Random Forest, SVM, Naïve Bayes) was utilized to narrow down the number of SpeBDs and DifBDs and find the most predictive combination of them to select COVID-19 potential Specific Blood Biomarker Signatures (SpeBBSs) and COVID-19 versus influenza Differential Blood Biomarker Signatures (DifBBSs), respectively. After that, models based on SpeBBSs and DifBBSs and the corresponding algorithms were built to assess their performance on an external dataset. Among all the extracted DEGs from the PB dataset (from common PB pathways with BALF, Lung and Swab), 108 unique SpeBD were obtained. Feature selection using Random Forest outperformed its counterparts and selected IGKC, IGLV3-16 and SRP9 among SpeBDs as SpeBBSs. Validation of the constructed model based on these genes and Random Forest on an external dataset resulted in 93.09% Accuracy. Eighty-three pathways enriched by SpeBDs and not by any of the influenza strains were identified, including 87 DifBDs. Using feature selection by Naive Bayes classifier on DifBDs, FMNL2, IGHV3-23, IGLV2-11 and RPL31 were selected as the most predictable DifBBSs. The constructed model based on these genes and Naive Bayes on an external dataset was validated with 87.2% accuracy. Our study identified several candidate blood biomarkers for a potential specific and differential diagnosis of COVID-19. The proposed biomarkers could be valuable targets for practical investigations to validate their potential.
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.