Systematic comparison of published host gene expression signatures for bacterial/viral discrimination
Measuring host gene expression is a promising diagnostic strategy to discriminate bacterial and viral infections. Multiple signatures of varying size, complexity, and target populations have been described. However, there is little information to indicate how the performance of various published sig...
Saved in:
| Published in | Genome medicine Vol. 14; no. 1; pp. 18 - 14 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors | , , , , , , , |
| Format | Journal Article |
| Language | English |
| Published |
England
BioMed Central Ltd
21.02.2022
BioMed Central BMC |
| Subjects | |
| Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
| Abstract | Measuring host gene expression is a promising diagnostic strategy to discriminate bacterial and viral infections. Multiple signatures of varying size, complexity, and target populations have been described. However, there is little information to indicate how the performance of various published signatures compare to one another.
This systematic comparison of host gene expression signatures evaluated the performance of 28 signatures, validating them in 4589 subjects from 51 publicly available datasets. Thirteen COVID-specific datasets with 1416 subjects were included in a separate analysis. Individual signature performance was evaluated using the area under the receiving operating characteristic curve (AUC) value. Overall signature performance was evaluated using median AUCs and accuracies.
Signature performance varied widely, with median AUCs ranging from 0.55 to 0.96 for bacterial classification and 0.69-0.97 for viral classification. Signature size varied (1-398 genes), with smaller signatures generally performing more poorly (P < 0.04). Viral infection was easier to diagnose than bacterial infection (84% vs. 79% overall accuracy, respectively; P < .001). Host gene expression classifiers performed more poorly in some pediatric populations (3 months-1 year and 2-11 years) compared to the adult population for both bacterial infection (73% and 70% vs. 82%, respectively; P < .001) and viral infection (80% and 79% vs. 88%, respectively; P < .001). We did not observe classification differences based on illness severity as defined by ICU admission for bacterial or viral infections. The median AUC across all signatures for COVID-19 classification was 0.80 compared to 0.83 for viral classification in the same datasets.
In this systematic comparison of 28 host gene expression signatures, we observed differences based on a signature's size and characteristics of the validation population, including age and infection type. However, populations used for signature discovery did not impact performance, underscoring the redundancy among many of these signatures. Furthermore, differential performance in specific populations may only be observable through this type of large-scale validation. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | Background Measuring host gene expression is a promising diagnostic strategy to discriminate bacterial and viral infections. Multiple signatures of varying size, complexity, and target populations have been described. However, there is little information to indicate how the performance of various published signatures compare to one another. Methods This systematic comparison of host gene expression signatures evaluated the performance of 28 signatures, validating them in 4589 subjects from 51 publicly available datasets. Thirteen COVID-specific datasets with 1416 subjects were included in a separate analysis. Individual signature performance was evaluated using the area under the receiving operating characteristic curve (AUC) value. Overall signature performance was evaluated using median AUCs and accuracies. Results Signature performance varied widely, with median AUCs ranging from 0.55 to 0.96 for bacterial classification and 0.69-0.97 for viral classification. Signature size varied (1-398 genes), with smaller signatures generally performing more poorly (P < 0.04). Viral infection was easier to diagnose than bacterial infection (84% vs. 79% overall accuracy, respectively; P < .001). Host gene expression classifiers performed more poorly in some pediatric populations (3 months-1 year and 2-11 years) compared to the adult population for both bacterial infection (73% and 70% vs. 82%, respectively; P < .001) and viral infection (80% and 79% vs. 88%, respectively; P < .001). We did not observe classification differences based on illness severity as defined by ICU admission for bacterial or viral infections. The median AUC across all signatures for COVID-19 classification was 0.80 compared to 0.83 for viral classification in the same datasets. Conclusions In this systematic comparison of 28 host gene expression signatures, we observed differences based on a signature's size and characteristics of the validation population, including age and infection type. However, populations used for signature discovery did not impact performance, underscoring the redundancy among many of these signatures. Furthermore, differential performance in specific populations may only be observable through this type of large-scale validation. Keywords: Biomarkers, Infectious disease, Diagnostics, Gene expression, Machine learning Measuring host gene expression is a promising diagnostic strategy to discriminate bacterial and viral infections. Multiple signatures of varying size, complexity, and target populations have been described. However, there is little information to indicate how the performance of various published signatures compare to one another.BACKGROUNDMeasuring host gene expression is a promising diagnostic strategy to discriminate bacterial and viral infections. Multiple signatures of varying size, complexity, and target populations have been described. However, there is little information to indicate how the performance of various published signatures compare to one another.This systematic comparison of host gene expression signatures evaluated the performance of 28 signatures, validating them in 4589 subjects from 51 publicly available datasets. Thirteen COVID-specific datasets with 1416 subjects were included in a separate analysis. Individual signature performance was evaluated using the area under the receiving operating characteristic curve (AUC) value. Overall signature performance was evaluated using median AUCs and accuracies.METHODSThis systematic comparison of host gene expression signatures evaluated the performance of 28 signatures, validating them in 4589 subjects from 51 publicly available datasets. Thirteen COVID-specific datasets with 1416 subjects were included in a separate analysis. Individual signature performance was evaluated using the area under the receiving operating characteristic curve (AUC) value. Overall signature performance was evaluated using median AUCs and accuracies.Signature performance varied widely, with median AUCs ranging from 0.55 to 0.96 for bacterial classification and 0.69-0.97 for viral classification. Signature size varied (1-398 genes), with smaller signatures generally performing more poorly (P < 0.04). Viral infection was easier to diagnose than bacterial infection (84% vs. 79% overall accuracy, respectively; P < .001). Host gene expression classifiers performed more poorly in some pediatric populations (3 months-1 year and 2-11 years) compared to the adult population for both bacterial infection (73% and 70% vs. 82%, respectively; P < .001) and viral infection (80% and 79% vs. 88%, respectively; P < .001). We did not observe classification differences based on illness severity as defined by ICU admission for bacterial or viral infections. The median AUC across all signatures for COVID-19 classification was 0.80 compared to 0.83 for viral classification in the same datasets.RESULTSSignature performance varied widely, with median AUCs ranging from 0.55 to 0.96 for bacterial classification and 0.69-0.97 for viral classification. Signature size varied (1-398 genes), with smaller signatures generally performing more poorly (P < 0.04). Viral infection was easier to diagnose than bacterial infection (84% vs. 79% overall accuracy, respectively; P < .001). Host gene expression classifiers performed more poorly in some pediatric populations (3 months-1 year and 2-11 years) compared to the adult population for both bacterial infection (73% and 70% vs. 82%, respectively; P < .001) and viral infection (80% and 79% vs. 88%, respectively; P < .001). We did not observe classification differences based on illness severity as defined by ICU admission for bacterial or viral infections. The median AUC across all signatures for COVID-19 classification was 0.80 compared to 0.83 for viral classification in the same datasets.In this systematic comparison of 28 host gene expression signatures, we observed differences based on a signature's size and characteristics of the validation population, including age and infection type. However, populations used for signature discovery did not impact performance, underscoring the redundancy among many of these signatures. Furthermore, differential performance in specific populations may only be observable through this type of large-scale validation.CONCLUSIONSIn this systematic comparison of 28 host gene expression signatures, we observed differences based on a signature's size and characteristics of the validation population, including age and infection type. However, populations used for signature discovery did not impact performance, underscoring the redundancy among many of these signatures. Furthermore, differential performance in specific populations may only be observable through this type of large-scale validation. Measuring host gene expression is a promising diagnostic strategy to discriminate bacterial and viral infections. Multiple signatures of varying size, complexity, and target populations have been described. However, there is little information to indicate how the performance of various published signatures compare to one another. This systematic comparison of host gene expression signatures evaluated the performance of 28 signatures, validating them in 4589 subjects from 51 publicly available datasets. Thirteen COVID-specific datasets with 1416 subjects were included in a separate analysis. Individual signature performance was evaluated using the area under the receiving operating characteristic curve (AUC) value. Overall signature performance was evaluated using median AUCs and accuracies. Signature performance varied widely, with median AUCs ranging from 0.55 to 0.96 for bacterial classification and 0.69-0.97 for viral classification. Signature size varied (1-398 genes), with smaller signatures generally performing more poorly (P < 0.04). Viral infection was easier to diagnose than bacterial infection (84% vs. 79% overall accuracy, respectively; P < .001). Host gene expression classifiers performed more poorly in some pediatric populations (3 months-1 year and 2-11 years) compared to the adult population for both bacterial infection (73% and 70% vs. 82%, respectively; P < .001) and viral infection (80% and 79% vs. 88%, respectively; P < .001). We did not observe classification differences based on illness severity as defined by ICU admission for bacterial or viral infections. The median AUC across all signatures for COVID-19 classification was 0.80 compared to 0.83 for viral classification in the same datasets. In this systematic comparison of 28 host gene expression signatures, we observed differences based on a signature's size and characteristics of the validation population, including age and infection type. However, populations used for signature discovery did not impact performance, underscoring the redundancy among many of these signatures. Furthermore, differential performance in specific populations may only be observable through this type of large-scale validation. Measuring host gene expression is a promising diagnostic strategy to discriminate bacterial and viral infections. Multiple signatures of varying size, complexity, and target populations have been described. However, there is little information to indicate how the performance of various published signatures compare to one another. This systematic comparison of host gene expression signatures evaluated the performance of 28 signatures, validating them in 4589 subjects from 51 publicly available datasets. Thirteen COVID-specific datasets with 1416 subjects were included in a separate analysis. Individual signature performance was evaluated using the area under the receiving operating characteristic curve (AUC) value. Overall signature performance was evaluated using median AUCs and accuracies. Signature performance varied widely, with median AUCs ranging from 0.55 to 0.96 for bacterial classification and 0.69-0.97 for viral classification. Signature size varied (1-398 genes), with smaller signatures generally performing more poorly (P < 0.04). Viral infection was easier to diagnose than bacterial infection (84% vs. 79% overall accuracy, respectively; P < .001). Host gene expression classifiers performed more poorly in some pediatric populations (3 months-1 year and 2-11 years) compared to the adult population for both bacterial infection (73% and 70% vs. 82%, respectively; P < .001) and viral infection (80% and 79% vs. 88%, respectively; P < .001). We did not observe classification differences based on illness severity as defined by ICU admission for bacterial or viral infections. The median AUC across all signatures for COVID-19 classification was 0.80 compared to 0.83 for viral classification in the same datasets. In this systematic comparison of 28 host gene expression signatures, we observed differences based on a signature's size and characteristics of the validation population, including age and infection type. However, populations used for signature discovery did not impact performance, underscoring the redundancy among many of these signatures. Furthermore, differential performance in specific populations may only be observable through this type of large-scale validation. Abstract Background Measuring host gene expression is a promising diagnostic strategy to discriminate bacterial and viral infections. Multiple signatures of varying size, complexity, and target populations have been described. However, there is little information to indicate how the performance of various published signatures compare to one another. Methods This systematic comparison of host gene expression signatures evaluated the performance of 28 signatures, validating them in 4589 subjects from 51 publicly available datasets. Thirteen COVID-specific datasets with 1416 subjects were included in a separate analysis. Individual signature performance was evaluated using the area under the receiving operating characteristic curve (AUC) value. Overall signature performance was evaluated using median AUCs and accuracies. Results Signature performance varied widely, with median AUCs ranging from 0.55 to 0.96 for bacterial classification and 0.69–0.97 for viral classification. Signature size varied (1–398 genes), with smaller signatures generally performing more poorly (P < 0.04). Viral infection was easier to diagnose than bacterial infection (84% vs. 79% overall accuracy, respectively; P < .001). Host gene expression classifiers performed more poorly in some pediatric populations (3 months–1 year and 2–11 years) compared to the adult population for both bacterial infection (73% and 70% vs. 82%, respectively; P < .001) and viral infection (80% and 79% vs. 88%, respectively; P < .001). We did not observe classification differences based on illness severity as defined by ICU admission for bacterial or viral infections. The median AUC across all signatures for COVID-19 classification was 0.80 compared to 0.83 for viral classification in the same datasets. Conclusions In this systematic comparison of 28 host gene expression signatures, we observed differences based on a signature’s size and characteristics of the validation population, including age and infection type. However, populations used for signature discovery did not impact performance, underscoring the redundancy among many of these signatures. Furthermore, differential performance in specific populations may only be observable through this type of large-scale validation. |
| ArticleNumber | 18 |
| Audience | Academic |
| Author | Woods, Christopher W. Ross, Melissa McClain, Micah T. Ko, Emily R. Bodkin, Nicholas Henao, Ricardo Tsalik, Ephraim L. Ginsburg, Geoffrey S. |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Nicholas orcidid: 0000-0001-5090-9616 surname: Bodkin fullname: Bodkin, Nicholas – sequence: 2 givenname: Melissa surname: Ross fullname: Ross, Melissa – sequence: 3 givenname: Micah T. surname: McClain fullname: McClain, Micah T. – sequence: 4 givenname: Emily R. surname: Ko fullname: Ko, Emily R. – sequence: 5 givenname: Christopher W. surname: Woods fullname: Woods, Christopher W. – sequence: 6 givenname: Geoffrey S. surname: Ginsburg fullname: Ginsburg, Geoffrey S. – sequence: 7 givenname: Ricardo surname: Henao fullname: Henao, Ricardo – sequence: 8 givenname: Ephraim L. surname: Tsalik fullname: Tsalik, Ephraim L. |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35184750$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNp9kl1rFDEUhgep2A_9A17IgCDeTJtkkkzmRihFbaHghQrehUxyspsyM1mT2bL9957ZbcuuiOQiX8_7ck7ynhZHYxyhKN5Sck6pkheZ1qSpK8JYRShhotq8KE5oI2TVtvzX0d76uDjN-Y4QyRlvXhXHtaCKN4KcFPD9IU8wmCnY0sZhZVLIcSyjL1frrg95Ca5cxjyVCxihhM0qQc4BiRwWo5nWuC19TGVn7AQpmP7iPiTTly5km8IQkEH6dfHSmz7Dm8f5rPj55fOPq-vq9tvXm6vL28oKKadKALOc1411ygoulDWWStdIC67rmCNKceMJGNrQzjphoHG8JY6Cl5aYVtZnxc3O10Vzp1dYgEkPOpqgtwcxLbRJ2GoPmneOM9E2jkrOvZeGScs4Zb5WDjpq0evTzgsfYgBnYZywsQPTw5sxLPUi3mulhJKiQYOPjwYp_l5DnvSAjwJ9b0aI66yZrKmkLRVz3e936MJgaWH0ER3tjOtLiR8opSAzdf4PCoeDIVjMhg94fiD4sCdYgumnZY79ev6SfAi-2-_1ucmnnCDAdoBNMecE_hmhRM9h1Lswagyj3oZRb1Ck_hLZMG3zgHWH_n_SP9F65h0 |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1038_s41564_022_01255_0 crossref_primary_10_1097_ICO_0000000000003545 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_cels_2022_11_007 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12920_024_01820_y crossref_primary_10_1007_s12325_022_02180_8 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjresp_2023_002001 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jinf_2024_01_010 crossref_primary_10_1093_bioinformatics_btae202 crossref_primary_10_1111_eci_13967 crossref_primary_10_3390_biomedicines12050969 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_023_49734_6 crossref_primary_10_3389_fvets_2024_1463431 crossref_primary_10_1097_QCO_0000000000000936 crossref_primary_10_1002_eji_202350519 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_xcrm_2022_100866 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0311007 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_xcrm_2022_100842 crossref_primary_10_3389_fimmu_2023_1168784 crossref_primary_10_1093_jacamr_dlac066 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12967_024_05241_4 |
| Cites_doi | 10.1126/sciadv.abe5984 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.022 10.1371/journal.pone.0020662 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.02.112 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30752-2 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf7165 10.1186/1471-2164-7-115 10.1177/1536867X0900900203 10.1093/infdis/jiv047 10.1002/1097-0142(1950)3:1<32::AID-CNCR2820030106>3.0.CO;2-3 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x 10.1001/jama.2016.11236 10.1186/cc11477 10.1002/sim.942 10.1128/CMR.00046-08 10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117 10.1038/s41598-017-02325-8 10.1016/S2589-7500(21)00102-3 10.1186/gb-2010-11-3-r25 10.1183/13993003.02098-2016 10.3390/ijms22063148 10.1371/journal.pone.0182294 10.1126/scitranslmed.3006280 10.1093/cid/civ486 10.1038/s41467-020-19587-y 10.1038/s41467-021-21289-y 10.1186/s12916-020-01653-3 10.1016/j.ebiom.2021.103352 10.1186/1741-7015-12-96 10.1001/jama.2016.9207 10.1073/pnas.1302968110 10.1038/s41598-021-89224-1 10.1126/scitranslmed.aad6873 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp616 10.1038/s41467-020-14975-w 10.1016/j.chom.2009.07.006 10.1097/CCM.0000000000005085 10.3389/fimmu.2017.00118 10.1038/s41598-017-06738-3 10.1038/s41598-019-43935-8 10.1093/nar/gkz369 10.1093/jac/dkt301 10.1016/S0002-9343(89)80697-7 10.1093/cid/ciaa663 10.1016/S0924-8579(09)70549-7 10.1016/j.cell.2016.09.025 10.1182/blood-2006-02-002477 10.1016/S2666-5247(21)00145-2 10.1016/j.immuni.2015.11.003 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| Copyright | 2022. The Author(s). COPYRIGHT 2022 BioMed Central Ltd. The Author(s) 2022 |
| Copyright_xml | – notice: 2022. The Author(s). – notice: COPYRIGHT 2022 BioMed Central Ltd. – notice: The Author(s) 2022 |
| DBID | AAYXX CITATION CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 5PM DOA |
| DOI | 10.1186/s13073-022-01025-x |
| DatabaseName | CrossRef Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed MEDLINE - Academic PubMed Central (Full Participant titles) DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals |
| DatabaseTitle | CrossRef MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE - Academic MEDLINE |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: DOA name: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals url: https://www.doaj.org/ sourceTypes: Open Website – sequence: 2 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 3 dbid: EIF name: MEDLINE url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search sourceTypes: Index Database |
| DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Biology |
| EISSN | 1756-994X |
| EndPage | 14 |
| ExternalDocumentID | oai_doaj_org_article_4bd42597d1644ff6a26c2412f38deb1c PMC8858657 A699466506 35184750 10_1186_s13073_022_01025_x |
| Genre | Comparative Study Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Journal Article Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural |
| GroupedDBID | --- 0R~ 2WC 53G 5VS 7X7 88E 8FE 8FH 8FI 8FJ AAFWJ AAJSJ AASML AAYXX ABDBF ABUWG ACGFS ACJQM ACUHS ADUKV AENEX AFKRA AFPKN AHBYD AHYZX ALIPV ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AMKLP AOIAM BBNVY BENPR BHPHI BMC BPHCQ BVXVI C6C CCPQU CITATION DIK E3Z EBD EBLON EBS ESX FYUFA GROUPED_DOAJ GX1 HCIFZ HMCUK HYE IAO IHR IHW INH INR ITC KQ8 LK8 M1P M7P MK0 M~E O5R O5S OK1 PGMZT PHGZM PHGZT PIMPY PQQKQ PROAC PSQYO RBZ ROL RPM RSV SBL SOJ TUS UKHRP -56 -5G -BR 3V. ACRMQ ADINQ C24 CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM PMFND 7X8 PPXIY PQGLB 5PM PJZUB PUEGO |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c566t-5e2c4437cd8c5458cac16d76cedbb2d0884af0ea171bcd5ae7d490d1ef6c0a963 |
| IEDL.DBID | DOA |
| ISSN | 1756-994X |
| IngestDate | Wed Aug 27 01:10:36 EDT 2025 Thu Aug 21 14:12:10 EDT 2025 Thu Jul 10 22:29:50 EDT 2025 Tue Jun 17 21:00:34 EDT 2025 Tue Jun 10 20:08:16 EDT 2025 Thu May 22 21:21:36 EDT 2025 Thu Jan 02 22:56:41 EST 2025 Thu Apr 24 22:53:34 EDT 2025 Tue Jul 01 04:01:11 EDT 2025 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 1 |
| Keywords | Biomarkers Infectious disease Diagnostics Gene expression Machine learning |
| Language | English |
| License | 2022. The Author(s). Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c566t-5e2c4437cd8c5458cac16d76cedbb2d0884af0ea171bcd5ae7d490d1ef6c0a963 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-1 content type line 23 |
| ORCID | 0000-0001-5090-9616 |
| OpenAccessLink | https://doaj.org/article/4bd42597d1644ff6a26c2412f38deb1c |
| PMID | 35184750 |
| PQID | 2631619156 |
| PQPubID | 23479 |
| PageCount | 14 |
| ParticipantIDs | doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_4bd42597d1644ff6a26c2412f38deb1c pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8858657 proquest_miscellaneous_2631619156 gale_infotracmisc_A699466506 gale_infotracacademiconefile_A699466506 gale_healthsolutions_A699466506 pubmed_primary_35184750 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13073_022_01025_x crossref_citationtrail_10_1186_s13073_022_01025_x |
| ProviderPackageCode | CITATION AAYXX |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2022-02-21 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2022-02-21 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 02 year: 2022 text: 2022-02-21 day: 21 |
| PublicationDecade | 2020 |
| PublicationPlace | England |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: England – name: London |
| PublicationTitle | Genome medicine |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | Genome Med |
| PublicationYear | 2022 |
| Publisher | BioMed Central Ltd BioMed Central BMC |
| Publisher_xml | – name: BioMed Central Ltd – name: BioMed Central – name: BMC |
| References | GBDRF Collaborators (1025_CR1) 2020; 396 JA Herberg (1025_CR8) 2016; 316 F Pedregosa (1025_CR35) 2011; 12 GC Lee (1025_CR3) 2014; 12 HK Li (1025_CR12) 2021; 2 AK Zaas (1025_CR23) 2009; 6 TH Mogensen (1025_CR46) 2009; 22 CN Correia (1025_CR50) 2017; 8 MB Mayhew (1025_CR24) 2020; 11 RM Harbord (1025_CR38) 2009; 9 C Palmer (1025_CR49) 2006; 7 EL Tsalik (1025_CR30) 2016; 8 NI Lytkin (1025_CR43) 2011; 6 Y Nedelec (1025_CR47) 2016; 167 CL Byington (1025_CR45) 2015; 61 GP Parnell (1025_CR25) 2012; 16 MT McClain (1025_CR22) 2021; 12 1025_CR32 H Lei (1025_CR9) 2021; 105 M Andres-Terre (1025_CR18) 2015; 43 1025_CR7 DJ Shapiro (1025_CR2) 2014; 69 IM Gould (1025_CR5) 2009; 34 P Mahajan (1025_CR29) 2016; 316 E Mick (1025_CR51) 2020; 11 N Xu (1025_CR10) 2021; 3 U Singh (1025_CR48) 2021; 11 DL Sampson (1025_CR13) 2017; 7 WJ Youden (1025_CR36) 1950; 3 1025_CR44 MD Robinson (1025_CR33) 2010; 11 S Ravichandran (1025_CR15) 2021; 67 U Raudvere (1025_CR31) 2019; 47 D Sampson (1025_CR16) 2020; 18 CDC (1025_CR4) 2019 S Balduzzi (1025_CR41) 2019; 22 1025_CR11 Y Benjamini (1025_CR42) 1995; 57 N Mantel (1025_CR40) 1959; 22 1025_CR52 CM Rutter (1025_CR37) 2001; 20 JB Reitsma (1025_CR39) 2005; 58 MD Robinson (1025_CR34) 2010; 26 TE Sweeney (1025_CR14) 2016; 8 AK Zaas (1025_CR28) 2013; 5 NM Suarez (1025_CR17) 2015; 212 F Song (1025_CR21) 2017; 12 X Hu (1025_CR27) 2013; 110 S Bhattacharya (1025_CR19) 2017; 7 O Ramilo (1025_CR26) 2007; 109 JH Kim (1025_CR6) 1989; 87 1025_CR20 |
| References_xml | – ident: 1025_CR20 doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abe5984 – volume: 58 start-page: 982 issue: 10 year: 2005 ident: 1025_CR39 publication-title: J Clin Epidemiol doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.022 – volume: 6 start-page: e20662 issue: 6 year: 2011 ident: 1025_CR43 publication-title: PLoS One doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020662 – volume: 105 start-page: 662 year: 2021 ident: 1025_CR9 publication-title: Int J Infect Dis doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.02.112 – volume: 396 start-page: 1223 issue: 10258 year: 2020 ident: 1025_CR1 publication-title: Lancet doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30752-2 – volume: 8 start-page: 346ra391 issue: 346 year: 2016 ident: 1025_CR14 publication-title: Sci Transl Med doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf7165 – volume: 7 start-page: 115 year: 2006 ident: 1025_CR49 publication-title: BMC Genomics doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-7-115 – volume: 9 start-page: 211 issue: 2 year: 2009 ident: 1025_CR38 publication-title: Stata Journal doi: 10.1177/1536867X0900900203 – volume: 212 start-page: 213 issue: 2 year: 2015 ident: 1025_CR17 publication-title: J Infect Dis doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiv047 – volume: 3 start-page: 32 issue: 1 year: 1950 ident: 1025_CR36 publication-title: Cancer doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(1950)3:1<32::AID-CNCR2820030106>3.0.CO;2-3 – volume: 57 start-page: 289 issue: 1 year: 1995 ident: 1025_CR42 publication-title: J Royal Stat Soc Series B (Methodological) doi: 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x – volume: 316 start-page: 835 issue: 8 year: 2016 ident: 1025_CR8 publication-title: JAMA doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.11236 – volume: 16 start-page: R157 issue: 4 year: 2012 ident: 1025_CR25 publication-title: Crit Care doi: 10.1186/cc11477 – volume: 20 start-page: 2865 issue: 19 year: 2001 ident: 1025_CR37 publication-title: Stat Med doi: 10.1002/sim.942 – volume: 22 start-page: 240 issue: 2 year: 2009 ident: 1025_CR46 publication-title: Clin Microbiol Rev doi: 10.1128/CMR.00046-08 – volume: 22 start-page: 153 issue: 4 year: 2019 ident: 1025_CR41 publication-title: Evid Based Ment Health doi: 10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117 – volume: 7 start-page: 2914 issue: 1 year: 2017 ident: 1025_CR13 publication-title: Sci Rep doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-02325-8 – volume: 3 start-page: e507 issue: 8 year: 2021 ident: 1025_CR10 publication-title: Lancet Digit Health doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(21)00102-3 – volume: 12 start-page: 2825 issue: null year: 2011 ident: 1025_CR35 publication-title: J Mach Learn Res – volume: 11 start-page: R25 issue: 3 year: 2010 ident: 1025_CR33 publication-title: Genome Biol doi: 10.1186/gb-2010-11-3-r25 – ident: 1025_CR7 doi: 10.1183/13993003.02098-2016 – ident: 1025_CR11 doi: 10.3390/ijms22063148 – volume: 12 start-page: e0182294 issue: 8 year: 2017 ident: 1025_CR21 publication-title: PLoS One doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182294 – volume: 5 start-page: 203ra126 issue: 203 year: 2013 ident: 1025_CR28 publication-title: Sci Transl Med doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3006280 – volume-title: Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States, 2019 year: 2019 ident: 1025_CR4 – volume: 61 start-page: 1217 issue: 8 year: 2015 ident: 1025_CR45 publication-title: Clin Infect Dis doi: 10.1093/cid/civ486 – volume: 11 start-page: 5854 issue: 1 year: 2020 ident: 1025_CR51 publication-title: Nat Commun doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-19587-y – volume: 12 start-page: 1079 issue: 1 year: 2021 ident: 1025_CR22 publication-title: Nat Commun doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-21289-y – volume: 22 start-page: 719 issue: 4 year: 1959 ident: 1025_CR40 publication-title: J Natl Cancer Inst – volume: 18 start-page: 185 issue: 1 year: 2020 ident: 1025_CR16 publication-title: BMC Med doi: 10.1186/s12916-020-01653-3 – volume: 67 start-page: 103352 year: 2021 ident: 1025_CR15 publication-title: EBioMedicine doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2021.103352 – volume: 12 start-page: 96 year: 2014 ident: 1025_CR3 publication-title: BMC Med doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-12-96 – volume: 316 start-page: 846 issue: 8 year: 2016 ident: 1025_CR29 publication-title: JAMA doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.9207 – volume: 110 start-page: 12792 issue: 31 year: 2013 ident: 1025_CR27 publication-title: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A doi: 10.1073/pnas.1302968110 – volume: 11 start-page: 9905 issue: 1 year: 2021 ident: 1025_CR48 publication-title: Sci Rep doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-89224-1 – volume: 8 start-page: 322ra311 issue: 322 year: 2016 ident: 1025_CR30 publication-title: Sci Transl Med doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aad6873 – volume: 26 start-page: 139 issue: 1 year: 2010 ident: 1025_CR34 publication-title: Bioinformatics doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp616 – volume: 11 start-page: 1177 issue: 1 year: 2020 ident: 1025_CR24 publication-title: Nat Commun doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-14975-w – volume: 6 start-page: 207 issue: 3 year: 2009 ident: 1025_CR23 publication-title: Cell Host Microbe doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2009.07.006 – ident: 1025_CR44 doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000005085 – volume: 8 start-page: 118 year: 2017 ident: 1025_CR50 publication-title: Front Immunol doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2017.00118 – volume: 7 start-page: 6548 issue: 1 year: 2017 ident: 1025_CR19 publication-title: Sci Rep doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-06738-3 – ident: 1025_CR32 doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-43935-8 – volume: 47 start-page: W191 issue: W1 year: 2019 ident: 1025_CR31 publication-title: Nucleic Acids Res doi: 10.1093/nar/gkz369 – volume: 69 start-page: 234 issue: 1 year: 2014 ident: 1025_CR2 publication-title: J Antimicrob Chemother doi: 10.1093/jac/dkt301 – volume: 87 start-page: 201 issue: 2 year: 1989 ident: 1025_CR6 publication-title: Am J Med doi: 10.1016/S0002-9343(89)80697-7 – ident: 1025_CR52 doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa663 – volume: 34 start-page: S2 issue: Suppl 3 year: 2009 ident: 1025_CR5 publication-title: Int J Antimicrob Agents doi: 10.1016/S0924-8579(09)70549-7 – volume: 167 start-page: 657 issue: 3 year: 2016 ident: 1025_CR47 publication-title: Cell doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2016.09.025 – volume: 109 start-page: 2066 issue: 5 year: 2007 ident: 1025_CR26 publication-title: Blood doi: 10.1182/blood-2006-02-002477 – volume: 2 start-page: e594 issue: 11 year: 2021 ident: 1025_CR12 publication-title: Lancet Microbe doi: 10.1016/S2666-5247(21)00145-2 – volume: 43 start-page: 1199 issue: 6 year: 2015 ident: 1025_CR18 publication-title: Immunity doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2015.11.003 |
| SSID | ssj0064247 |
| Score | 2.427669 |
| Snippet | Measuring host gene expression is a promising diagnostic strategy to discriminate bacterial and viral infections. Multiple signatures of varying size,... Background Measuring host gene expression is a promising diagnostic strategy to discriminate bacterial and viral infections. Multiple signatures of varying... Abstract Background Measuring host gene expression is a promising diagnostic strategy to discriminate bacterial and viral infections. Multiple signatures of... |
| SourceID | doaj pubmedcentral proquest gale pubmed crossref |
| SourceType | Open Website Open Access Repository Aggregation Database Index Database Enrichment Source |
| StartPage | 18 |
| SubjectTerms | Adult Bacterial infections Bacterial Infections - diagnosis Bacterial Infections - epidemiology Bacterial Infections - genetics Biomarkers Biomarkers - analysis Child Cohort Studies Comparative analysis COVID-19 - diagnosis COVID-19 - genetics Datasets as Topic - statistics & numerical data Diagnosis Diagnosis, Differential Diagnostics Gene expression Gene Expression Profiling - statistics & numerical data Genes Genetic Association Studies - statistics & numerical data Genetic research Health aspects Host-Pathogen Interactions - genetics Humans Infection Infectious disease Machine learning Publications - statistics & numerical data SARS-CoV-2 - pathogenicity Transcriptome Validation Studies as Topic Virus diseases Virus Diseases - diagnosis Virus Diseases - epidemiology Virus Diseases - genetics |
| Title | Systematic comparison of published host gene expression signatures for bacterial/viral discrimination |
| URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35184750 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2631619156 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC8858657 https://doaj.org/article/4bd42597d1644ff6a26c2412f38deb1c |
| Volume | 14 |
| hasFullText | 1 |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV1LaxRBEG40IngJxudoXFsQPEizMz39mDkmkhg8BFEDe2umXygssyG7gfXfW9U9O-wg6CWXPUzXDtv1LrbqK0LeRyUaKeqaRSUdQ_QX1rVCMqmcjDZADhtTt8WlurgSXxZysbfqC3vCMjxwZtxcWA9q1WoPeb2IUXVcOYg6PNaNBz_j0PtCzNsVU9kHQ1It9G5EplHzdYWqzLBzHTHUJNtOwlBC6__bJ-8FpWnD5F4EOn9MDofUkZ7kn3xE7oX-CXmYl0n-fkrC9xGUmbpxuyBdRXo9tL57iiMdFFQm0LAdOmB7ii0cCd5zTSGDpTbjN3fLOfb_LinO7ebdXyjDZ-Tq_OzHpws2LFFgDjK1DZOBOyFqjRgA-CeZ61ylvFYueGu5BycjuliGrtKVdV52QXvRlr4KUbmyA_N8Tg76VR9eEtrUHZRvtoQXcqG4sDE0tvSOh5qXVtcFqXY8NW5AGMdFF0uTKo1GmSwHA3IwSQ5mW5CP43euM77GP6lPUVQjJWJjpwegMWbQGPM_jSnIWxS0yYOmo4WbE9Ui2L4sVUE-JAq0cbgAsCyPKgAbEC1rQnk8oQTbdJPjdztlMniEDW19WN2uDVc15NotVM8FeZGVa7xVLaHshkyuIHqidpNrT0_6Xz8TNHjTyEZJ_eou-PSaPOLJYjjj1TE52NzchjeQgW3sjNzXCz0jD07PLr9-myXTg8_Pi-oPd7kypQ |
| linkProvider | Directory of Open Access Journals |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Systematic+comparison+of+published+host+gene+expression+signatures+for+bacterial%2Fviral+discrimination&rft.jtitle=Genome+medicine&rft.au=Bodkin%2C+Nicholas&rft.au=Ross%2C+Melissa&rft.au=McClain%2C+Micah+T.&rft.au=Ko%2C+Emily+R.&rft.date=2022-02-21&rft.pub=BioMed+Central&rft.eissn=1756-994X&rft.volume=14&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186%2Fs13073-022-01025-x&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F35184750&rft.externalDocID=PMC8858657 |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1756-994X&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1756-994X&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1756-994X&client=summon |