ArticleScientific reports2024
Comparative analysis of feature selection techniques for COVID-19 dataset.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computational proteomics to enhance personalized treatment of COVID-19 and Long COVID.Clinical proteomics · 2026Review
- PreBP: an interpretable, optimized ensemble framework using routine complete blood count for rapid pathogen identification in bacterial pneumonia.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the context of early disease detection, machine learning (ML) has emerged as a vital tool. Feature selection (FS) algorithms play a crucial role in ensuring the accuracy of predictive models by identifying the most influential variables. This study, focusing on a retrospective cohort of 4778 COVID-19 patients from Iran, explores the performance of various FS methods, including filter, embedded, and hybrid approaches, in predicting mortality outcomes. The researchers leveraged 115 routine clinical, laboratory, and demographic features and employed 13 ML models to assess the effectiveness of these FS methods based on classification accuracy, predictive accuracy, and statistical tests. The results indicate that a Hybrid Boruta-VI model combined with the Random Forest algorithm demonstrated superior performance, achieving an accuracy of 0.89, an F1 score of 0.76, and an AUC value of 0.95 on test data. Key variables identified as important predictors of adverse outcomes include age, oxygen saturation levels, albumin levels, neutrophil counts, platelet levels, and markers of kidney function. These findings highlight the potential of advanced FS techniques and ML models in enhancing early disease detection and informing clinical decision-making.
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.