MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3042277674 · doi:10.1101/2020.07.11.20151688

COVID-19 among people living with HIV: A systematic review

2020· review· en· W3042277674 on OpenAlexafffund
Hossein Mirzaei, Willi McFarland, Mohammad Karamouzian, Hamid Sharifi

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersPierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation
KeywordsMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PandemicDiabetes mellitusObesityWeb of scienceHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Internal medicineMEDLINEHyperlipidemiaDiseasePediatricsFamily medicineMeta-analysisInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This systematic review summarizes the evidence on the earliest patients with COVID-19-HIV co-infection. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, preprint databases, and Google Scholar from December 01, 2019 to June 1, 2020. From an initial 547 publications and 75 reports, 25 studies provided specific information on COVID-19 patients living with HIV. Studies described 252 patients, 80.9% were male, mean age was 52.7 years, and 98% were on ART. Co-morbidities in addition to HIV and COVID-19 (multimorbidity) included hypertension (39.3%), obesity or hyperlipidemia (19.3%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (18.0%), and diabetes (17.2%). Two-thirds (66.5%) had mild to moderate symptoms, the most common being fever (74.0%) and cough (58.3%). Among patients who died, the majority (90.5%) were over 50 years old, male (85.7%), and had multimorbidity (64.3%). Our findings highlight the importance of identifying co-infections, addressing co-morbidities, and ensuring a secure supply of ART for PLHIV during the COVID-19 pandemic.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.351 · 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

Citations57
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207