Clinical Course of COVID-19 in Identical Twins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid outbreak of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has led to infection with variable clinical presentations and a wide clinical spectrum. The disease was first reported in Wuhan, China in 2019 and has rapidly spread worldwide. Despite reports of dynamic changes in disease progression, clinical predictors of disease severity have been difficult to identify. The following case describing identical twins with laboratory confirmed COVID-19 who had very different disease courses. These patients resided in the same home and shared many of the same comorbidities, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension and morbid obesity. Although twin 1 had higher inflammatory markers, white blood cell (WBC) and an arguably more complicated medical history in comparison to their identical twin, the patient experienced a milder and shorter disease course. This case highlights the need for identifying proper disease markers and predictors early in the clinical course in order to direct future management guidelines and timely treatment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.576 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".