ArticlePloS one2026
Full blood count dynamics in immunologically naïve individuals with mild COVID-19: A prospective community cohort study.
Article in PloS one, 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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeFull blood count (FBC) provides a range of cellular haematological parameters and serves as a routinely available basic immune profile. While FBC has been widely used to monitor moderate-to-severe COVID-19 in hospitalised settings, its temporal dynamics in mild, community-managed cases remain poorly characterised, despite these constituting the majority of global infections.
methodsIn a prospective cohort study, we tracked the cellular haematological profiles of 93 recently exposed, immunologically naïve individuals with mild COVID-19 and no underlying co-morbidities, recruited to the Integrated Network for Surveillance, Trials and Investigations into COVID-19 Transmission (INSTINCT) study. Blood samples were collected on D0, D7, D14 and D28 and subsequently aligned to infection-timepoints based on the day of first detected PCR positivity, and analysed using mixed-effects models.
resultsOver 30% of cases exhibited transient, clinically defined neutropenia (mean (95% CI): First PCR-Positive (FP) 2.47x109/L (2.26-2.68) vs convalescence 3.34 x109/L (2.98-3.7); p = 0.0013). Over 20% exhibited lymphopenia (FP 1.38x109/L (1.28-1.48) vs convalescence 1.79x109/L (1.79-2.01); p = 0.0013). Additionally, we observed a notable elevation in platelet count, peaking approximately two weeks after initial infection (mean (95% CI): FP + 14 283x109/L (254-311) vs convalescence 237x109/L (222-252); p = 0.0013).
conclusionsTransient neutropenia and lymphopenia occurred in approximately one-third and one-fifth of mild COVID-19 cases, respectively, and were followed by a delayed increase in platelet count. This study provides a descriptive, prospective dataset of full blood count parameters spanning early infection to convalescence in immunologically naïve individuals with mild SARS-CoV-2 infection. These data may support mathematical modelling of within-host cellular haematological dynamics and have potential clinical relevance for understanding typical trajectories of routine blood parameters during mild disease.
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.