ArticleScientific reports2026
Longitudinal modeling of Post-COVID-19 condition over three years: A machine learning approach using clinical, neuropsychological, and fluid markers.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Post-COVID-19 condition (PCC) manifests with prolonged, heterogeneous symptoms challenging both, diagnosis and therapeutic management. This three-year longitudinal study analyzed data from 93 adults (mean age of 48.9 ± 14.0, 60 female) after confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Every follow-up visit included clinical, neuropsychological, and laboratory assessments, capturing multidimensional indicators of patient health. A machine learning framework was implemented to classify temporal stage of patient health status, identify visit-specific predictive markers, and manage incomplete data using both native handling in tree-based models and explicit imputation techniques. Gradient boosting methods consistently achieved the best performance across all visit comparisons, achieving F1-scores close to or above 90%. Classification performance improved with greater time intervals between visits, suggesting progressive divergence in patient phenotypes over time. For discriminating follow-up stages, inflammatory markers emerged as the most informative predictors, followed by SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels and neuropsychiatric measures for fatigue and cognitive performance. Interpretability analyses using SHAP and LIME confirmed the contribution of these features, while revealing shifts in feature relevance across years. These findings highlight the utility of machine learning in characterizing follow-up stage separability in PCC and offer clinically interpretable insights that prioritize immune and neuropsychological measures for monitoring and risk-stratified follow-up.
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.