Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38937503›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Comparing machine learning screening approaches using clinical data and cytokine profiles for COVID-19 in resource-limited and resource-abundant settings.

Hooman H Rashidi, Aamer Ikram, Luke T Dang, Adnan Bashir, Tanzeel Zohra, Amna Ali, Hamza Tanvir, Mohammad Mudassar, Resmi Ravindran, Nasim Akhtar and 6 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Study Models forMicroorganisms · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Hooman H RashidiComputational Pathology and AI Center of Excellence (CPACE), University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, and University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, USA. rashidihh@upmc.edu.
Aamer IkramNational Institutes of Health, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Luke T DangDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of California, 4400 V Street, DavisSacramento, CA, 95817, USA.
Adnan BashirHealth Information Systems Program (HISP), Islamabad, Pakistan.
Tanzeel ZohraNational Institutes of Health, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Amna AliNational Institutes of Health, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Hamza TanvirNational Institutes of Health, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Mohammad MudassarNational Institutes of Health, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Resmi RavindranDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of California, 4400 V Street, DavisSacramento, CA, 95817, USA.
Nasim AkhtarPakistan Institute of Medical Sciences, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Rana I SikandarPakistan Institute of Medical Sciences, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Mohammed UmerRawalpindi Medical University-Rawalpindi, Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
Naeem AkhterRawalpindi Medical University-Rawalpindi, Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
Rafi ButtIsolation Hospital and Infectious Treatment Centre, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Brandon D FennellDepartment of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, USA.
Imran H KhanDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of California, 4400 V Street, DavisSacramento, CA, 95817, USA. ihkhan@ucdavis.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

COVID-19CytokinesMachine LearningAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and SpecificityCytokinesBinary classifierChemokinesCOVID-19CTACK (CCL27)CytokinesEotaxin (CCL11)FGF basic (FGF2)G-CSF (CSF3)GM-CSF (CSF2)GRO-α (CXCL1)HGFIFN-α2 (IFNA2)IFN-γ (IFNG)IL10IL-12 (p40) (IL12B)IL-12 (p70) (IL12A)IL13IL15IL16IL17AIL-18 (IL18)IL-1ra (IL1RN)IL-1α (IL1A)IL-1β (IL1B)IL2IL-2Rα (IL2RA)IL3IL4IL5IL6IL7IL8 (CXCL8)IL9IP-10 (CXCL10)LIFMachine learningMCP-1 (MCAF) (CCL2)MCP-3 (CCL7)M-CSF (CSF1)MIFMIG (CXCL9)MIP-1α (CCL3)MIP-1β (CCL4)PDGF-BB (PDGFB)RANTES (CCL5)SCF (KITLG)SCGF-β (CLEC11A)SDF-1α (CXCL12)TNF-αTNF-β (LTA)TRAIL (TNFSF10)VEGF (VEGFA)β-NGF (NGF)

Identifiers

PMID38937503
PMCPMC11211475

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.