MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3029080096 · doi:10.1590/0004-282x20200051

Neurological complications in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review

2020· review· en· W3029080096 on OpenAlexaff
Renato P. Munhoz, José Luiz Pedroso, Fábio A. Nascimento, Sérgio Monteiro de Almeida, Orlando Graziani Póvoas Barsottini, Francisco Cardoso, Hélio Afonso Ghizoni Teive

Bibliographic record

VenueArquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsmyalgiaMedicineHyposmiaIntensive care medicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)PandemicPediatricsDiseasePathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: As the COVID-19 pandemic unfolds worldwide, different forms of reports have described its neurologic manifestations. OBJECTIVE: To review the literature on neurological complications of SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: Literature search performed following systematic reviews guidelines, using specific keywords based on the COVID-19 neurological complications described up to May 10th, 2020. RESULTS: A total of 43 articles were selected, including data ranging from common, non-specific symptoms, such as hyposmia and myalgia, to more complex and life-threatening conditions, such as cerebrovascular diseases, encephalopathies, and Guillain-Barré syndrome. CONCLUSION: Recognition of neurological manifestations of SARS-CoV-2 should be emphasized despite the obvious challenges faced by clinicians caring for critical patients who are often sedated and presenting other concurrent systemic complications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations146
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArquivos de Neuro-PsiquiatriaSame topicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19French-language works237,207