ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Machine learning integration identifying an eight-gene diagnostic signature for acute mountain sickness.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomarkers and potential subtypes of acute mountain sickness: A state-of-the-science review.Redox biology · 2026Review
- Clustering analysis of acute mountain sickness susceptibility among young adults during rapid ascent using low-altitude step test data.Physiological reports · 2026Article
- Integrated proteomic and metabolomic analyses define the molecular architecture of acute mountain sickness.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Acute mountain sickness (AMS) is highly prevalent at high altitudes, with estimated incidence rates ranging from 25 to 90%. However, current AMS diagnosis primarily relies on self-reported questionnaires, highlighting the need for reliable biomarkers. Thus, we aimed to establish a diagnostic model for AMS. Methods: We applied scRNA-seq ( Results: We analyzed cellular heterogeneity through scRNA-seq data, revealing significant enrichment of myeloid (MD) and platelet (PLT) cells during AMS progression. Subsequently, we identified 526 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) associated with the progression of AMS using pseudobulk differential expression analysis on the MD and PLT subsets between the AMS and control groups. We further screened for AMS-associated genes using bulk RNA-seq based differential analysis and WGNCA. Finally, we screened 12 AMS-related genes using scRNA-seq and bulk-RNA-seq data. These genes were utilized as features across 113 distinct combinations of machine learning models to develop an AMS diagnostic model. The model of Stepglm[both] + NaiveBayes (ATP6V0C, BCL2A1, CD52, CSTA, GZMA, HINT1, PFDN5, and RNF11) demonstrated optimal diagnostic accuracy. It obtained an AUC of 0.948 on the training cohort ( Conclusion: Using machine learning, we identified and validated a minimal blood biomarker signature for AMS diagnosis. This approach offered a practical approach for the early detection of AMS, especially in resource-limited populations residing in high-altitude regions.
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.