ArticlemBio2025
Development of a metabolome-based respiratory infection prognostic during COVID-19 arrival.
Article in mBio, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Imaging and Laboratory Results as Predictors of the Course of COVID-19.Advances in respiratory medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In a new respiratory virus pandemic, optimizing allocation of scarce medical resources becomes an urgent challenge. Infection prognosis takes on particular importance when allocating scarce antiviral antibodies and drugs, which are most effective when administered before the onset of severe disease. During arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic to the United States in 2020, we conducted a prognostic biomarker discovery and validation effort based upon metabolomic profiling with a liquid-chromatography-mass spectrometer (LC-MS) type used clinically for rapid toxicology. We obtained urine specimens from 163 patients presenting for evaluation. We obtained LC-MS profiles in the initial cohort and used machine learning methods to define a simplified urine metabolomic signature associated with respiratory failure or death by 90 days. This signature was composed of three metabotypes linked to intestinal microbiome metabolism and anticonvulsant use, with a receiver-operator characteristic area under the curve (ROC AUC) of 89.4%. Blinded application of this signature to the subsequent validation cohort yielded a ROC AUC of 81.2%. A model trained on the two baseline metabotypes present before intubation exhibited similar performance in the validation cohort. This study demonstrates the plausibility and promise of rapid metabolome-based prognostic discovery and validation in the opening wave of a pandemic. The approach used here could be used to inform therapeutic and resource allocation decisions early in a future epidemic.IMPORTANCEIn a new respiratory virus pandemic, the ability to identify patients at greatest risk for severe disease is essential to direct scarce medical resources to those most likely to benefit from them. Tools to predict disease severity are best developed early in a pandemic, but laboratory-based resources to develop these may be limited by available technology and by infection precautions. Here, we show that an accessible metabolic profiling approach could identify a prognostic signature of severe disease in the initial wave of COVID-19, when patients presenting for care often exceeded the available doses of convalescent plasma and remdesivir. In a future pandemic, this approach, alongside efforts to identify clinical disease severity predictors, could improve patient outcomes and facilitate therapeutic trials by identifying individuals at high risk for severe disease.
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.