Integrated longitudinal multiomics study identifies immune programs associated with acute COVID-19 severity and mortality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUNDPatients hospitalized for COVID-19 exhibit diverse clinical outcomes, with outcomes for some individuals diverging over time even though their initial disease severity appears similar to that of other patients. A systematic evaluation of molecular and cellular profiles over the full disease course can link immune programs and their coordination with progression heterogeneity.METHODSWe performed deep immunophenotyping and conducted longitudinal multiomics modeling, integrating 10 assays for 1,152 Immunophenotyping Assessment in a COVID-19 Cohort (IMPACC) study participants and identifying several immune cascades that were significant drivers of differential clinical outcomes.RESULTSIncreasing disease severity was driven by a temporal pattern that began with the early upregulation of immunosuppressive metabolites and then elevated levels of inflammatory cytokines, signatures of coagulation, formation of neutrophil extracellular traps, and T cell functional dysregulation. A second immune cascade, predictive of 28-day mortality among critically ill patients, was characterized by reduced total plasma Igs and B cells and dysregulated IFN responsiveness. We demonstrated that the balance disruption between IFN-stimulated genes and IFN inhibitors is a crucial biomarker of COVID-19 mortality, potentially contributing to failure of viral clearance in patients with fatal illness.CONCLUSIONOur longitudinal multiomics profiling study revealed temporal coordination across diverse omics that potentially explain the disease progression, providing insights that can inform the targeted development of therapies for patients hospitalized with COVID-19, especially those who are critically ill.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov NCT04378777.FUNDINGNIH (5R01AI135803-03, 5U19AI118608-04, 5U19AI128910-04, 4U19AI090023-11, 4U19AI118610-06, R01AI145835-01A1S1, 5U19AI062629-17, 5U19AI057229-17, 5U19AI125357-05, 5U19AI128913-03, 3U19AI077439-13, 5U54AI142766-03, 5R01AI104870-07, 3U19AI089992-09, 3U19AI128913-03, and 5T32DA018926-18); NIAID, NIH (3U19AI1289130, U19AI128913-04S1, and R01AI122220); and National Science Foundation (DMS2310836).
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".