ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2026
Comparative review of artificial intelligence for transcriptomic biomarker discovery in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
Review in Briefings in bioinformatics, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has highlighted the significance of reliable molecular biomarkers in clinical use. Despite the popularity of traditional statistical approaches, the high dimensionality of transcriptomic data presents challenges for these conventional methods. While artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms have emerged as highly advantageous for handling these complex datasets, there is a lack of evaluation of these approaches in COVID-19 transcriptomic studies. This review aims to provide an evaluation of these studies employed for transcriptomic biomarker discovery in COVID-19 using AI, assessing their study designs, methodologies, and outcomes. Based on a comprehensive search for literature across five databases including Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, PubMed/MEDLINE, IEEE Xplore Digital Library, and LitCovid from December 2019 to March 2025, this review selected 63 studies for a narrative synthesis of four key sections: (i) The Landscape of AI-Driven COVID-19 Transcriptomics, (ii) Limitations of Studies, (iii) A Proposed AI-Driven Transcriptomics Framework, and (iv) Clinical Translation Challenges, Opportunities, and Future Directions. Our analysis revealed limitations in data quality, sample size, and heterogeneity, as well as methodologies regarding validation and interpretability. Thus, we proposed an evidence-informed workflow that addresses these current limitations in study design, while acknowledging real-world constraints. We further discuss the emerging potential of agentic AI systems as a promising solution to current limitations. By bridging methodological gaps with translation considerations, this review can enhance pandemic response strategies for future emerging infectious diseases. Key Points Applications observed in reviewed studies mainly included applications in diagnosis and severity stratification of COVID-19 patients. The limitations of current studies included small sample sizes, the reliance on public datasets lacking detailed metadata, batch effects and data heterogeneity reducing model robustness, the lack of external validation, risks of data leakage and circular validation leading to inflated performance metrics, and challenges in model interpretability. An evidence-informed AI-driven framework is proposed, acknowledging real-world constraints including small pandemic cohort sizes, domain shift from viral evolution, and resource-limited settings, with emerging agentic AI systems offering potential solutions.
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.