ArticleViruses2026
Tree-Based Classification of COVID-19 Using NanoString Whole-Blood Immune-Response Profiles: Comparison of Full-Dataset and LOOCV-Embedded Feature Selection.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhole-blood transcriptomic profiling can capture systemic immune-response alterations associated with COVID-19 and may support host-response-based classification. However, evidence regarding the discriminatory value of targeted immune-gene panels remains limited, and in small, high-dimensional datasets, the timing of feature selection may substantially affect model performance and interpretation.
aimThis study aimed to evaluate whether NanoString Human Immunology Panel profiles could distinguish COVID-19 from healthy-control measurements and to compare full-dataset feature selection (FDFS) with leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV)-embedded feature selection (LEFS).
methodsPublicly available E-MTAB-8871 data comprising 579 genes and 32 whole-blood transcriptomic profiles were analyzed. The dataset included 22 longitudinal COVID-19 measurements obtained from three participants and 10 measurements obtained from 10 healthy controls. Elastic Net regularization was used for feature selection. Random Forest, XGBoost, and LightGBM classifiers were evaluated using sample-level LOOCV. Model performance was assessed using threshold-dependent, discrimination, and probability-based metrics. A separate exploratory LightGBM model was analyzed using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) to characterize feature contributions.
resultsFDFS identified a fixed 40-gene set, whereas LEFS selected a mean of 42 genes per fold (range: 40-47). LightGBM correctly classified all 32 measurement-level profiles (derived from 13 unique participants: 10 healthy controls and three longitudinally sampled COVID-19 participants) in both frameworks, achieving area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC) and area under the precision-recall curve (PR-AUC) values of 1.000 and Brier scores of 0.005 and 0.006 in the FDFS and LEFS frameworks, respectively. Random Forest achieved accuracies of 0.969 and 1.000, whereas XGBoost achieved an accuracy of 0.969 in both frameworks. SHAP analyses consistently identified
conclusionsThis exploratory analysis showed that targeted NanoString immune-response profiles contained a compact transcriptomic signal capable of distinguishing COVID-19 from healthy-control measurements within the analyzed dataset. These findings provide proof-of-concept evidence of internal measurement-level discrimination. However, because the COVID-19 profiles consisted of repeated measurements from only three participants, sample-level LOOCV did not constitute independent participant-level validation. External validation in larger cohorts comprising independently sampled participants is required. Given that the COVID-19 arm comprised only three independent participants, these biological findings should be regarded as hypothesis-generating and require validation in substantially larger independent cohorts.
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.