MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3098388920 · doi:10.1177/1203475420972343

Lessons From the First Wave of the Pandemic: Skin Features of COVID-19 Can Be Divided Into Inflammatory and Vascular Patterns

2020· review· en· W3098388920 on OpenAlexaff
Sheida Naderi-Azad, Ronald Vender

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatological and COVID-19 studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDermatologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Livedo reticularisVasculitisPandemicPurpura (gastropod)DiseaseCoronavirusSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)PathologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review examines the clinical, morphological, and systemic factors related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cutaneous manifestations. The EMBASE, Medline, and Pubmed Central databases were searched from February 1, 2020 until April 25, 2020, using the search words "(COVID-19 OR SARS-CoV-2 OR coronavirus-19) AND (skin OR cutaneous OR dermatologic)". Cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 were included. The cutaneous manifestations can be classified into 2 types. Patients with inflammatory reactions consisted of morbilliform, varicella-like, urticarial eruptions, and vesiculobullous manifestations. These manifestations were mainly found on the trunk, limbs, and faces of patients and had mainly positive COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction findings (97.7%). Furthermore, there were 516 patients with acral vascular lesions: chilblains, livedo lesions, cutaneous small-vessel vasculitis, and other noninflammatory purpura. These were often nonpruritic (88%) and not seen in severe disease (88.7%). The cutaneous lesions have potential for early diagnosis of COVID-19 and prevention of disease transmission. The implications of COVID-19 in the field of dermatology continue to evolve as more clinical data becomes available.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.870
Threshold uncertainty score0.645

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and SurgerySame topicDermatological and COVID-19 studiesFrench-language works237,207