ArticleViruses2023
Machine Learning Algorithms Associate Case Numbers with SARS-CoV-2 Variants Rather Than with Impactful Mutations.
Article in Viruses, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, much effort has been geared towards creating models to predict case numbers. These models typically rely on epidemiological data, and as such overlook viral genomic information, which could be assumed to improve predictions, as different variants show varying levels of virulence. To test this hypothesis, we implemented simple models to predict future case numbers based on the genomic sequences of the Alpha and Delta variants, which were co-circulating in Texas and Minnesota early during the pandemic. Sequences were encoded, matched with case numbers at a future time based on collection date, and used to train two algorithms: one based on random forests and one based on a feed-forward neural network. While prediction accuracies were ≥93%, explainability analyses showed that the models were not associating case numbers with mutations known to have an impact on virulence, but with individual variants. This work highlights the necessity of gaining a better understanding of the data used for training and of conducting explainability analysis to assess whether model predictions are misleading.
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.