Association between Circulating Amino Acids and COVID-19 Severity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The severity of the symptoms associated with COVID-19 is highly variable, and has been associated with circulating amino acids as a group of analytes in metabolomic studies. However, for each individual amino acid, there are discordant results among studies. The aims of the present study were: (i) to investigate the association between COVID-19-symptom severity and circulating amino-acid concentrations; and (ii) to assess the ability of circulating amino-acid levels to predict adverse outcomes (intensive-care-unit admission or hospital death). We studied a sample of 736 participants from the Biobanque Québécoise COVID-19. All participants tested positive for COVID-19, and the severity of symptoms was determined using the World-Health-Organization criteria. Circulating amino acids were measured by HPLC-MS/MS. We used logistic models to assess the association between circulating amino acids concentrations and the odds of presenting mild vs. severe or mild vs. moderate symptoms, as well as their accuracy in predicting adverse outcomes. Patients with severe COVID-19 symptoms were older on average, and they had a higher prevalence of obesity and type 2 diabetes. Out of 20 amino acids tested, 16 were significantly associated with disease severity, with phenylalanine (positively) and cysteine (inversely) showing the strongest associations. These associations remained significant after adjustment for age, sex and body mass index. Phenylalanine had a fair ability to predict the occurrence of adverse outcomes, similar to traditionally measured laboratory variables. A multivariate model including both circulating amino acids and clinical variables had a 90% accuracy at predicting adverse outcomes in this sample. In conclusion, patients presenting severe COVID-19 symptoms have an altered amino-acid profile, compared to those with mild or moderate symptoms.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.142 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".