MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092981406 · doi:10.1177/2632010x20951823

Histopathologic Findings of Coronavirus in Lung: A Mini-Review

2020· review· en· W3092981406 on OpenAlexaff
Bita Geramizadeh, Mahsa Marzban

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Pathology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutbreakLungPneumoniaCoronavirusAtypical pneumoniaMiddle East respiratory syndrome coronavirusMedicineSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PathologyVirologyRespiratory systemMiddle East respiratory syndromeInternal medicineDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coronaviruses (CoVs) are important human and animal pathogens. There have been several outbreaks of lung involvement by this category of viruses in the world, ie, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV-1) in 2002 and 2003, the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS-CoV) in 2012, and the new coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak of pneumonia from Wuhan, China, since December 2019. There have been several studies about the clinical features and imaging features, but very few reports have been published about pathologic findings in lung tissue, which was partly because of the lack of tissue diagnosis secondary to suddenness of the outbreak. Overall, less than 30 reports have been published in the literature about histologic findings of lung in these viruses, so far. In this report, we will review the published reports about the histopathologic findings of lung tissue in the patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in comparison with 2 other coronaviruses that have caused outbreaks, ie, SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.356
GPT teacher head0.595
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical PathologySame topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207