A diagnostic classifier for gene expression-based identification of early Lyme disease
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Lyme disease is a tick-borne illness that causes an estimated 476,000 infections annually in the United States. New diagnostic tests are urgently needed, as existing antibody-based assays lack sufficient sensitivity and specificity. Methods Here we perform transcriptome profiling by RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq), targeted RNA-Seq, and/or machine learning-based classification of 263 peripheral blood mononuclear cell samples from 218 subjects, including 94 early Lyme disease patients, 48 uninfected control subjects, and 57 patients with other infections (influenza, bacteremia, or tuberculosis). Differentially expressed genes among the 25,278 in the reference database are selected based on ≥1.5-fold change, ≤0.05 p value, and ≤0.001 false-discovery rate cutoffs. After gene selection using a k-nearest neighbor algorithm, the comparative performance of ten different classifier models is evaluated using machine learning. Results We identify a 31-gene Lyme disease classifier (LDC) panel that can discriminate between early Lyme patients and controls, with 23 genes (74.2%) that have previously been described in association with clinical investigations of Lyme disease patients or in vitro cell culture and rodent studies of Borrelia burgdorferi infection. Evaluation of the LDC using an independent test set of samples from 63 subjects yields an overall sensitivity of 90.0%, specificity of 100%, and accuracy of 95.2%. The LDC test is positive in 85.7% of seronegative patients and found to persist for ≥3 weeks in 9 of 12 (75%) patients. Conclusions These results highlight the potential clinical utility of a gene expression classifier for diagnosis of early Lyme disease, including in patients negative by conventional serologic testing.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 it