ArticleScientific reports2025
Prospective study using artificial neural networks for identification of high-risk COVID-19 patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic caused a major public health crisis, with severe impacts on global health and the economy. Machine learning (ML) has been crucial in developing new technologies to address challenges posed by the pandemic, particularly in identifying high-risk COVID-19 patients. This identification is vital for efficiently allocating hospital resources and controlling the virus's spread. Comprehensive validation of these intelligent approaches is necessary to confirm their clinical usefulness and help create future strategies for managing viral outbreaks. Here we present a prospective study to evaluate the performance of state-of-the-art ML models designed to identify high-risk COVID-19 patients across four clinical stages. Using artificial neural networks trained with historical patient data from Mexico, we assess the models' accuracy across six epidemiological waves without retraining them. We then compare their performance against neural networks trained with cumulative historical data up to the end of each wave. The findings reveal that models trained on early data can effectively predict high-risk patients in later waves, despite changes in vaccination rates, viral strains, and treatments. These results suggest that artificial intelligence-based patient classification methods could be robust tools for future pandemics, aiding in predicting clinical outcomes under evolving conditions.
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.