Circulating proteins to predict adverse COVID-19 outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Predicting COVID-19 severity is difficult, and the biological pathways involved are not fully understood. To approach this problem, we measured 4,701 circulating human protein abundances in two independent cohorts totaling 986 individuals. We then trained prediction models including protein abundances and clinical risk factors to predict adverse COVID-19 outcomes in 417 subjects and tested these models in a separate cohort of 569 individuals. For severe COVID-19, a baseline model including age and sex provided an area under the receiver operator curve (AUC) of 65% in the test cohort. Selecting 92 proteins from the 4,701 unique protein abundances improved the AUC to 88% in the training cohort, which remained relatively stable in the testing cohort at 86%, suggesting good generalizability. Proteins selected from different adverse COVID-19 outcomes were enriched for cytokine and cytokine receptors, but more than half of the enriched pathways were not immune-related. Taken together, these findings suggest that circulating proteins measured at early stages of disease progression are reasonably accurate predictors of adverse COVID-19 outcomes. Further research is needed to understand how to incorporate protein measurement into clinical care.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".