ArticleViruses2026
A CNN-Based Model of Cross-Immunity to Influenza A(H3N2) Virus: Testing Under "Real-World" Conditions.
Article in Viruses, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A cross-immunity model for influenza A(H3N2) based on convolutional neural networks (CNNs) was developed and validated under temporally structured conditions that mimic real-world forecasting. Antigenic distance was derived from hemagglutination inhibition (HI) titers. The model was trained on WHO data (2011-2023) and tested in a time-split fashion on independent recent data (2022-2024). Hemagglutinin sequences (HA/HA1) were encoded into 3D tensors using five physicochemical indices from AAindex. Two- and three-layer CNN architectures were tested. Performance was evaluated using Accuracy, Sensitivity, Specificity, and Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC) with 95% confidence intervals. Validation on the classic Smith's dataset showed high accuracy (Accuracy = 0.9996, MCC = 0.9964), serving as a necessary sanity check. Testing on current data yielded lower but robust results (Accuracy: 0.73-0.81, MCC: 0.48-0.60), reflecting real-world forecasting complexity. ROC analysis confirmed the strong discriminative ability (AUC ≥ 0.805) and good calibration (Brier scores ≤ 0.192). The three-layer CNN demonstrated greater robustness on challenging data. This CNN model is an effective tool for assessing influenza A(H3N2) antigenic distances and holds promise for integration into epidemiological models to aid vaccine strain selection. Further accuracy improvements may arise from modeling the structural impact of amino acid substitutions and polyclonal immune responses.
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.