Integrating exosomal microRNAs and electronic health data improved tuberculosis diagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Tuberculosis (TB) is difficult to diagnose under complex clinical conditions as electronic health records (EHRs) are often inadequate in making an affirmative diagnosis. As exosomal miRNAs emerged as promising biomarkers, we investigated the potential of using exosomal miRNAs and EHRs in TB diagnosis. Methods A total of 370 individuals, including pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB), tuberculous meningitis (TBM), non-TB disease controls and healthy state controls, were enrolled. Exosomal miRNAs were profiled in the exploratory cohort using microarray and miRNA candidates were selected in the selection cohort using qRT-PCR. EHRs and follow-up information of the patients were collected accordingly. miRNAs and EHRs were used to develop diagnostic models for PTB and TBM in the selection cohort with the Support Vector Machine (SVM) algorithm. These models were further evaluated in an independent testing cohort. Findings Six exosomal miRNAs (miR-20a, miR-20b, miR-26a, miR-106a, miR-191, miR-486) were differentially expressed in the TB patients. Three SVM models, "EHR+miRNA", "miRNA only" and "EHR only" were compared, and "EHR + miRNA" model achieved the highest diagnostic efficacy, with an AUC up to 0.97 (95% CI 0.80–0.99) in TBM and 0.97 (0.87–0.99) in PTB, respectively. However, "EHR only" model only showed an AUC of 0.67 (0.46–0.83) in TBM. After 2-month anti-tuberculosis therapy, overexpressed miRNAs presented a decreased expression trend ( p = 4.80 × 10 −5 ). Interpretation Our results showed that the combination of exosomal miRNAs and EHRs could potentially improve clinical diagnosis of TBM and PTB. Fund Funds for the Central Universities, the National Natural Science Foundation of China.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".