Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42115913›Full record

ArticleDiagnostic and prognostic research2026

Variable selection for prediction models of Omicron infection: Insights from two population-based cohort studies.

Joanne Lacy, Dominik Menges, Tala Ballouz, Anja Frei, Céline Pellaton, Craig Fenwick, Giuseppe Pantaleo, Milo A Puhan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostic and prognostic research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Joanne LacyEpidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute (EBPI), University of Zurich (UZH), Zurich, Switzerland.
Dominik MengesEpidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute (EBPI), University of Zurich (UZH), Zurich, Switzerland.
Tala BallouzEpidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute (EBPI), University of Zurich (UZH), Zurich, Switzerland.
Anja FreiEpidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute (EBPI), University of Zurich (UZH), Zurich, Switzerland.
Céline PellatonService of Immunology and Allergy, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Craig FenwickService of Immunology and Allergy, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Giuseppe PantaleoService of Immunology and Allergy, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Milo A PuhanEpidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute (EBPI), University of Zurich (UZH), Zurich, Switzerland. miloalan.puhan@uzh.ch.

Funding

University of Zurich (UZH) Postdoc Grant FK-22-053
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuring the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, prediction modelling was widely used to forecast infection rates while only few studies developed models to predict individual risk of infection for Omicron and subsequent variants. For such prediction models to perform well, it is important to carefully select predictors from a comprehensive set of potential factors, including prior infection and vaccination history, individual behaviors, and immunological markers.

methodsThis exploratory analysis aimed to develop and compare prediction models for Omicron infection to provide an evidence base for identifying key predictors of SARS-CoV-2 infections which can be used to inform future derivation and validation of predictive models. We used data from 710 participants from two ongoing, prospective population-based cohorts: the Zurich SARS-CoV-2 Cohort and the Zurich SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Cohort (Switzerland). Participants were recruited between 2020 and 2021 and provided demographic data, vaccination history, self-reported infections, and longitudinal serological data (anti-S IgG, anti-S IgA, anti-N IgG antibodies) collected at 6-month intervals. Our main outcome was SARS-CoV-2 infection during the first Omicron wave (01.01.2022-31.03.2022) based on self-reported positive tests or a doubling in any of anti-S IgG, anti-S IgA or anti-N IgG. We used logistic regression models with backward stepwise selection based on the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) to evaluate predictors and identify the best-fitting models.

resultsOnly 17.3% of participants reported a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result during the Omicron wave. However, when including serological testing, 37.2% of participants had evidence of infection, indicating substantial underdiagnosis. The best-performing model had an AUC of 0.69 (95%CI 0.66, 0.73) and included the following predictors: age, sex, compliance with COVID-19 prevention guidelines, smoking status, comorbidities, prior anti-N IgG antibody levels, and the sequence of previous infections and vaccinations. We found that older age (≥ 65 years) was associated with a 50-60% lower odds of Omicron infection across all our models, while having fewer prior exposures (through infections or vaccinations) increased the odds of infection.

conclusionThis explorative study highlights the importance of integrating comprehensive immunological, clinical and behavioral data to predict SARS-CoV-2 infection risk. Our study lays the foundation to develop and validate future prediction models that identify individuals at risk, particularly through the novel use of infection and prior vaccination sequence as an important predictor.

Identifiers

PMID42115913
PMCPMC13159202

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.