MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3087254545 · doi:10.1177/0300060520958594

Possible effect of epinephrine in minimizing COVID-19 severity: a review

2020· review· en· W3087254545 on OpenAlexaff
Mahnaz Derakhshan, Hamid Reza Ansarian, Mory Ghomshei

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of International Medical Research · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Institute of TechnologyUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsymptomaticCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)EpinephrineEpidemiologyIntensive care medicinePandemicSeverity of illnessIllness severityCase fatality rateDiseaseIntervention (counseling)Emergency medicinePediatricsInternal medicinePsychiatryInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) shows a wide range of severity, ranging from an asymptomatic presentation to a severe illness requiring intensive care unit admission. Identification of a strategy to manage the severity of this disease will not only help to reduce its case fatality but also help to remove some of the burden from the already overwhelmed health care systems. While successful management of symptoms in general is important, identifying measures to modify the severity of the illness is a key factor in the fight against this pandemic. METHODS: This paper presents a short literature review to suggest a new treatment modality for COVID-19. RESULTS: COVID-19 is less severe and rarely fatal in children than in adults, which could be caused by greater fluctuations of plasma epinephrine in children. Our literature survey endorses this hypothesis according to both the epidemiological and immunological findings. CONCLUSION: Application of epinephrine pulses with a specific amplitude may be considered an intervention to minimize the severity of COVID-19.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.232
GPT teacher head0.627
Teacher spread0.395 · 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

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of International Medical ResearchSame topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207