Clinical and Laboratory Findings That Differentiate Herpes Simplex Virus Central Nervous System Disease from Enteroviral Meningitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. It can be difficult for clinicians to distinguish between the relatively benign enteroviral (EnV) meningitis and potentially lethal herpes simplex virus (HSV) central nervous system (CNS) disease. Very limited evidence currently exists to guide them. Objective. This study sought to identify clinical features and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) findings associated with HSV CNS disease. Methods. Given that PCR testing often is not immediately available, this chart review study sought to identify clinical and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) findings associated with HSV meningitis over a 6-year period. In cases where PCR was not performed, HSV and EnV were assigned based on clinical criteria. Results. We enrolled 166 consecutive patients: 40 HSV and 126 EnV patients. HSV patients had a mean 40.4 versus 31.3 years for EnV, p = 0.005, seizures 21.1% versus 1.6% for EnV, p < 0.001, altered mental status 46.2% versus 3.2% for EnV, p < 0.001, or neurological deficits 44.7% versus 3.9% for EnV, p < 0.001. CSF neutrophils were lower in HSV (median 3.0% versus 9.5%, p = 0.0002); median lymphocytes (87.0% versus 67.0%, p = 0.0004) and protein (0.9 g/L versus 0.6 g/L, p = 0.0005) were elevated. Conclusion. Our study found that HSV patients were older and more likely to have seizure, altered mental status, or neurological deficits than patients with benign EnV meningitis. HSV cases had lower CSF neutrophils, higher lymphocytes, and higher protein levels.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".