ArticleScientific reports2024
Comparing machine learning screening approaches using clinical data and cytokine profiles for COVID-19 in resource-limited and resource-abundant settings.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transforming cytokine diagnostics: AI, multiplexing, and point-of-care biosensing technologies.Mikrochimica acta · 2025Review
- Study Models forMicroorganisms · 2025Review
- Simplified flow cytometry-based assay for rapid multi-cytokine profiling and machine-learning-assisted diagnosis of inflammatory diseases.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of frequentist, Bayesian, and machine learning models for predicting SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Cytokine Storm in COVID-19: Exploring IL-6 Signaling and Cytokine-Microbiome Interactions as Emerging Therapeutic Approaches.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate screening of COVID-19 infection status for symptomatic patients is a critical public health task. Although molecular and antigen tests now exist for COVID-19, in resource-limited settings, screening tests are often not available. Furthermore, during the early stages of the pandemic tests were not available in any capacity. We utilized an automated machine learning (ML) approach to train and evaluate thousands of models on a clinical dataset consisting of commonly available clinical and laboratory data, along with cytokine profiles for patients (n = 150). These models were then further tested for generalizability on an out-of-sample secondary dataset (n = 120). We were able to develop a ML model for rapid and reliable screening of patients as COVID-19 positive or negative using three approaches: commonly available clinical and laboratory data, a cytokine profile, and a combination of the common data and cytokine profile. Of the tens of thousands of models automatically tested for the three approaches, all three approaches demonstrated > 92% sensitivity and > 88 specificity while our highest performing model achieved 95.6% sensitivity and 98.1% specificity. These models represent a potential effective deployable solution for COVID-19 status classification for symptomatic patients in resource-limited settings and provide proof-of-concept for rapid development of screening tools for novel emerging infectious diseases.
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.