Novel Biomarkers for SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, has posed significant challenge to global healthcare systems, necessitating reliable biomarkers to predict disease severity and mortality. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the prognostic value of novel biomarkers in COVID-19 patients. The aim of this study was to identify and prioritize the most prognostically relevant novel biomarkers associated with COVID-19 outcomes. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available evidence. A systematic search of PubMed and Web of Science was performed to identify studies on the COVID-19 biomarkers. Observational studies that compared poor (severe disease/mortality) and good outcomes were included. For continuous measures, standard mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve analyses for the biomarkers were used. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. Results: Of the 2907 screened studies, 38 were included (21 in the meta-analysis). MR-proADM showed higher levels of prediction for poor outcomes (SMD = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.11–1.69; AUC 0.74–0.96; sensitivity, 85%; specificity, 71%). The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) showed a high correlation with disease severity (SMD = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.79–1.35; AUC 0.73–0.98; sensitivity, 86%; specificity, 78%). Increased KL-6 levels were associated with lung injury (SMD = 1.22, 95% CI: 0.24–2.19; AUC 0.85–0.95). Other biomarkers (suPAR, miR-155, Galectin-3) showed promise but lacked sufficient data for pooled analysis. Heterogeneity was observed among the included studies in terms of diagnostic accuracy. These findings indicate that elevated levels of MR-proADM, NLR, and KL-6 are significantly associated with COVID-19 prognostic accuracy to guide patient management. Conclusions: MR-proADM, NLR, and KL-6 levels demonstrated strong prognostic value for COVID-19 severity and mortality. These biomarkers can enhance clinical decision-making.
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 | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".