Consensus study of risk factors and symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) using biomedical literature and social media data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background In December 2019, Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak started in China and rapidly spread around the world. Lack of any vaccine or optimized intervention raised the importance of characterizing risk factors and symptoms for the early identification and successful treatment of COVID-19 patients. Methods We systematically integrated and analyzed published biomedical literature and public social media data to expand our landscape of clinical and demographic variables of COVID-19. Through semantic analysis, 45 retrospective cohort studies, which evaluated 303 clinical and demographic variables across 13 different outcomes of COVID-19, and 84,140 tweet posts from 1,036 COVID-19 positive users were collected. In total, 59 symptoms were identified across both datasets. Findings Approximately 90% of clinical and demographic variables showed inconsistency across outcomes of COVID-19. From the consensus analysis, we identified clinical and demographic variables that were specific for individual outcomes of COVID-19. Also, 25 novel symptoms that have been not previously well characterized, but were mentioned in social media. Furthermore, we observed that there were certain combinations of symptoms that were frequently mentioned together among COVID-19 patients. Interpretation Identified outcome-specific clinical and demographic variables, symptoms, and combinations of symptoms may serve as surrogate indicators to identify COVID-19 patients and predict their clinical outcomes providing appropriate treatments.
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 | 0.016 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.042 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".