ABSTRACT
Background: Misconceptions about adverse side effects are thought to influence public acceptance of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines negatively. To address such perceived disadvantages of vaccines, a novel machine learning (ML) approach was designed to generate personalized predictions of the most common adverse side effects following injection of six different COVID-19 vaccines based on personal and health-related characteristics. Methods: Prospective data of adverse side effects following COVID-19 vaccination in 19943 participants from Iran and Switzerland was utilized. Six vaccines were studied: The AZD1222, Sputnik V, BBIBP-CorV, COVAXIN, BNT162b2, and the mRNA-1273 vaccine. The eight side effects were considered as the model output: fever, fatigue, headache, nausea, chills, joint pain, muscle pain, and injection site reactions. The total input parameters for the first and second dose predictions were 46 and 54 features, respectively, including age, gender, lifestyle variables, and medical history. The performances of multiple ML models were compared using Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (ROC-AUC). Results: The total number of people receiving the first dose of the AZD1222, Sputnik V, BBIBP-CorV, COVAXIN, BNT162b2, and mRNA-1273 were 6022, 7290, 5279, 802, 277, and 273, respectively. For the second dose, the numbers were 2851, 5587, 3841, 599, 242 and 228. The Logistic Regression model for predicting different side effects of the first dose achieved ROC-AUCs of 0.620-0.686, 0.685-0.716, 0.632-0.727, 0.527-0.598, 0.548-0.655, 0.545-0.712 for the AZD1222, Sputnik V, BBIBP-CorV, COVAXIN, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines, respectively. The second dose models yielded ROC-AUCs of 0.777-0.867, 0.795-0.848, 0.857-0.906, 0.788-0.875, 0.683-0.850, and 0.486-0.680, respectively. Conclusions: Using a large cohort of recipients vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines, a novel and personalized strategy was established to predict the occurrence of the most common adverse side effects with high accuracy. This technique can serve as a tool to inform COVID-19 vaccine selection and generate personalized factsheets to curb concerns about adverse side effects.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has overwhelmed the treatment capacity of the health care systems during the highest viral diffusion rate. Patients reaching the emergency department had to be either hospitalized (inpatients) or discharged (outpatients). Still, the decision was taken based on the individual assessment of the actual clinical condition, without specific biomarkers to predict future improvement or deterioration, and discharged patients often returned to the hospital for aggravation of their condition. Here, we have developed a new combined approach of omics to identify factors that could distinguish coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) inpatients from outpatients. METHODS: Saliva and blood samples were collected over the course of two observational cohort studies. By using machine learning approaches, we compared salivary metabolome of 50 COVID-19 patients with that of 270 healthy individuals having previously been exposed or not to SARS-CoV-2. We then correlated the salivary metabolites that allowed separating COVID-19 inpatients from outpatients with serum biomarkers and salivary microbiota taxa differentially represented in the two groups of patients. RESULTS: We identified nine salivary metabolites that allowed assessing the need of hospitalization. When combined with serum biomarkers, just two salivary metabolites (myo-inositol and 2-pyrrolidineacetic acid) and one serum protein, chitinase 3-like-1 (CHI3L1), were sufficient to separate inpatients from outpatients completely and correlated with modulated microbiota taxa. In particular, we found Corynebacterium 1 to be overrepresented in inpatients, whereas Actinomycetaceae F0332, Candidatus Saccharimonas, and Haemophilus were all underrepresented in the hospitalized population. CONCLUSION: This is a proof of concept that a combined omic analysis can be used to stratify patients independently from COVID-19.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Identifying and testing individuals likely to have SARS-CoV-2 is critical for infection control, including post-vaccination. Vaccination is a major public health strategy to reduce SARS-CoV-2 infection globally. Some individuals experience systemic symptoms post-vaccination, which overlap with COVID-19 symptoms. This study compared early post-vaccination symptoms in individuals who subsequently tested positive or negative for SARS-CoV-2, using data from the COVID Symptom Study (CSS) app. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study in 1,072,313 UK CSS participants who were asymptomatic when vaccinated with Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) or Oxford-AstraZeneca adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) between 8 December 2020 and 17 May 2021, who subsequently reported symptoms within seven days (N=362,770) (other than local symptoms at injection site) and were tested for SARS-CoV-2 (N=14,842), aiming to differentiate vaccination side-effects per se from superimposed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The post-vaccination symptoms and SARS-CoV-2 test results were contemporaneously logged by participants. Demographic and clinical information (including comorbidities) were recorded. Symptom profiles in individuals testing positive were compared with a 1:1 matched population testing negative, including using machine learning and multiple models considering UK testing criteria. FINDINGS: Differentiating post-vaccination side-effects alone from early COVID-19 was challenging, with a sensitivity in identification of individuals testing positive of 0.6 at best. Most of these individuals did not have fever, persistent cough, or anosmia/dysosmia, requisite symptoms for accessing UK testing; and many only had systemic symptoms commonly seen post-vaccination in individuals negative for SARS-CoV-2 (headache, myalgia, and fatigue). INTERPRETATION: Post-vaccination symptoms per se cannot be differentiated from COVID-19 with clinical robustness, either using symptom profiles or machine-derived models. Individuals presenting with systemic symptoms post-vaccination should be tested for SARS-CoV-2 or quarantining, to prevent community spread. FUNDING: UK Government Department of Health and Social Care, Wellcome Trust, UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, UK National Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council and British Heart Foundation, Chronic Disease Research Foundation, Zoe Limited.
ABSTRACT
The worldwide health crisis caused by the SARS-Cov-2 virus has resulted in>3 million deaths so far. Improving early screening, diagnosis and prognosis of the disease are critical steps in assisting healthcare professionals to save lives during this pandemic. Since WHO declared the COVID-19 outbreak as a pandemic, several studies have been conducted using Artificial Intelligence techniques to optimize these steps on clinical settings in terms of quality, accuracy and most importantly time. The objective of this study is to conduct a systematic literature review on published and preprint reports of Artificial Intelligence models developed and validated for screening, diagnosis and prognosis of the coronavirus disease 2019. We included 101 studies, published from January 1st, 2020 to December 30th, 2020, that developed AI prediction models which can be applied in the clinical setting. We identified in total 14 models for screening, 38 diagnostic models for detecting COVID-19 and 50 prognostic models for predicting ICU need, ventilator need, mortality risk, severity assessment or hospital length stay. Moreover, 43 studies were based on medical imaging and 58 studies on the use of clinical parameters, laboratory results or demographic features. Several heterogeneous predictors derived from multimodal data were identified. Analysis of these multimodal data, captured from various sources, in terms of prominence for each category of the included studies, was performed. Finally, Risk of Bias (RoB) analysis was also conducted to examine the applicability of the included studies in the clinical setting and assist healthcare providers, guideline developers, and policymakers.