Systematic review of factors associated with the development of Guillain–Barré syndrome 2007–2017: what has changed?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe the factors associated with the development of Guillain-Barré syndrome, both infectious and non-infectious, during and after the A(H1N1) influenza pandemic in 2009 and the recent Zika virus epidemic in the Americas. METHOD: Systematic review of literature on factors associated with the development of the Guillain-Barré syndrome published between 2007 and 2017 listed in EBSCO, MEDLINE and LILACS databases. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Thirty-four articles met inclusion criteria and were selected for analysis. Their quality was considered good in relation to most of the items evaluated. Many aetiological agents had the results of association with Guillain-Barré syndrome, among them Campylobacter jejuni, influenza vaccine - both pandemic and seasonal vaccines, respiratory infection, gastrointestinal infection among others. The aetiological agents found are, in most part, the same reported prior to the study period. The association with surgeries, chikungunya virus (CHIKV), Zika virus and quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine stand out as new aetiological agents in the list of the various possible agents that trigger Guillain-Barré syndrome reported in the study period. There were no Brazilian studies identified during this period. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the review reaffirmed C. jejuni as the major trigger of GBS, whereas the association of influenza vaccines and GBS is less clear; Zika virus infection in association with GBS was found in only one study.
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 | 0.009 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".