ArticleOxford open immunology2026
Algorithm dependence of patient phenotypes in Long COVID: a patient-led, multi-method clustering of 6031 patients using 162 self-reported symptoms.
Article in Oxford open immunology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Long COVID, characterized by symptoms that remain or emerge in the months after acute COVID-19 infection, is a multisystemic condition with highly variable patient presentations. Phenotyping studies have reported divergent symptom clusters, increasingly used to design trials and interpret biomarker data. However, robustness of these clusters across analytic methods remains uncertain. Methods: We analyzed data from 6 031 adults with ≥ 90 days of illness from a patient-led international survey. Participants reported presence/absence of 162 symptoms, post-exertional malaise severity and demographics. We applied three unsupervised machine learning approaches to the same symptom matrix, evaluating the resulting clusterings for concordance, robustness to subsampling, and relationship to symptom burden, post-exertional malaise severity, age and gender. Results: Each method produced clinically plausible symptom clusters, but concordance across methods was low. All three approaches identified a high-symptom-burden group enriched for post-exertional malaise severity, and lower-symptom-burden groups with older mean age and a lower proportion of women. Symptom count consistently correlated with higher post-exertional malaise severity and a greater proportion of women. Manifold analysis revealed that the overall symptom space was largely continuous, lacking clear cluster boundaries. Conclusions: The strong dependence of patient clusters on algorithm choice suggests that single-method Long COVID phenotyping may produce incomplete or unstable subgroup definitions. Clustering methods may impose artificial boundaries on a smoothly varying symptom landscape, especially in studies capturing fewer symptoms. Phenotyping efforts should assess clustering robustness and avoid overinterpreting single-method results. Our multi-method analysis highlights the importance of considering the full breadth of patient symptoms when evaluating treatments.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.