Skip to main content
SearchLoginLogin or Signup

Reviews of "A 5-transcript Signature for Discriminating Viral and Bacterial Etiology in Pediatric Pneumonia"

Reviewers: M Zinter (UCSF) | 📗📗📗📗◻️ • M Taylor & A Sapru (UCLA) | 📒📒📒◻️◻️

Published onDec 18, 2024
Reviews of "A 5-transcript Signature for Discriminating Viral and Bacterial Etiology in Pediatric Pneumonia"
key-enterThis Pub is a Review of
A 5-transcript signature for discriminating viral and bacterial etiology in pediatric pneumonia
A 5-transcript signature for discriminating viral and bacterial etiology in pediatric pneumonia
Description

Abstract Pneumonia stands as the primary cause of death among children under five, yet current diagnosis methods often result in inadequate or unnecessary treatments. Our research seeks to address this gap by identifying host transcriptomic biomarkers in the blood of children with definitive viral and bacterial pneumonia. We performed RNA sequencing on 192 prospectively collected whole blood samples, including 38 controls and 154 pneumonia cases, uncovering a 5-transcript signature (genes FAM20A, BAG3, TDRD9, MXRA7 and KLF14) that effectively distinguishes bacterial from viral pneumonia (AUC: 0.95 [0.88–1.00]) Initial validation using combined definitive and probable cases yielded an AUC of 0.87 [0.77–0.97], while full validation in a new prospective cohort of 32 patients achieved an AUC of 0.92 [0.83–1]. This robust signature holds significant potential to enhance diagnostics accuracy for pediatric pneumonia, reducing diagnostic delays and unnecessary treatments, and potentially transforming clinical practice.

To read the original manuscript, click the link above.

Summary of Reviews: This study investigates a 5-transcriptomic signature that differentiates bacterial and viral pneumonia in children with high accuracy, validated across independent cohorts. The researchers highlight the potential for transcriptomics to improve early pneumonia diagnosis and management by reducing misdiagnoses and unnecessary treatments. However, reviewers raised concerns about clarity in cohort definitions, methodological transparency in gene selection, and overstatements of the signature's performance compared to previous models. Further validation, especially with more diverse cohorts and low-prevalence pathogens, is needed to confirm generalizability and clinical applicability.

Reviewer 1 (Matt Z…) | 📗📗📗📗◻️

Reviewer 2 (Mia T… & Anil S…) | 📒📒📒 ◻️◻️

RR\ID Strength of Evidence Scale Key

📕 ◻️◻️◻️◻️ = Misleading

📙📙 ◻️◻️◻️ = Not Informative

📒📒📒 ◻️◻️ = Potentially Informative

📗📗📗📗◻️ = Reliable

📘📘📘📘📘 = Strong

To read the reviews, click the links below. 

Comments
2
?
Sam nokosova:

Do you have more references about it, Whenever the talk of Getting over it apk 1.9.8 takes place I recall the same version of research that was done in this short paragraph.

?
Arlo Singleton:

Blast through enemies in hills of steel! Traverse hills, upgrade tanks, and dominate battles in this exciting tactical action game!