MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406923865 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofae631.2392

P-2239. RNA Signatures for Diagnosing or Predicting Febrile Illness: A Descriptive Analysis

2025· article· en· W4406923865 on OpenAlexaffabout
H Kozłowski, Rebecca Womersley, Sam Brophy‐Williams, Costanza Di Chiara, Ryan S. Huang, Nikki Wong, Katie Lee, Joelle Peresin, Shaun Morris

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral Infections and Vectors
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDescriptive statisticsIntensive care medicineVirologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Fever is a common sign of illness; it may self-resolve or be present in serious illnesses requiring hospitalization. Investigating the cause of fever can be extremely resource intensive requiring multiple diagnostic tests and healthcare providers thereby delaying time to diagnosis. RNA molecules present in the blood can be easily detected and reflect a patient’s disease state, making them ideal biomarkers. Our objective was to identify RNA common to signatures that diagnose and predict the outcome of febrile illnesses. Our secondary objectives were to assess whether signatures are being validated and translated. Methods We conducted a scoping review of published research articles, including preprints, from EMBASE and Medline that measured blood RNA in patients with febrile illness. Here we are analyzing a articles that used array or RNA-seq to generate original signatures. Results We identified 248 original blood RNA signatures for the diagnosis or prognosis of febrile illness. 154 were diagnostic, 56 prognostic, 15 diagnostic/prognostic and 23 exploratory. The most common illnesses studied were sepsis (n=83), viral infections (n=74) and tuberculosis (n=38). From all sepsis signatures there were 214 unique RNA and 74 RNA present in multiple signatures. The most common RNA, C3AR1 (complement receptor) and MPO (myeloperoxidase), appeared in 5 signatures. For viral infections there were 54 signatures, and IFI27 (interferon) appeared in 8 signatures. For tuberculosis there were 26 signatures, and the most common RNA were BATF2 (transcription factor) and FCGR1B (Fc receptor) each appearing in 4 signatures. 158/248 signatures were validated. Clinical sensitivity and specificity in validation groups were 54-100% and 79-97%, respectively. 9/248 studies claimed that they had filed or were filing for a patent. Conclusion Blood RNA molecules can be used for the diagnosis and prognosis of febrile illnesses. Currently, < 65% of RNA signatures are validated and < 5% of signatures are commercialized. In conducting this analysis, we encountered a lack of standardization in methods reporting. Further work to improve transparency and encourage validation is needed so RNA signatures can be adapted into simple, molecular diagnostic tests and translated for patient use. Disclosures Shaun Morris, MD, MPH, DTM&H, FRCPC, FAAP, GSK Canada: Advisor/Consultant|GSK Canada: Honoraria|Pfizer: Advisor/Consultant|Pfizer: Honoraria|Sanofi Canada: Advisor/Consultant|Sanofi Canada: Honoraria

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.005
Bibliometrics0.0130.013
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicViral Infections and VectorsFrench-language works237,207