Clinical, epidemiological, laboratory, and radiological characteristics of novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in retrospective studies: A systemic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In December 2019, a novel pneumonia related to the 2019 coronavirus unexpectedly developed in Wuhan, China. We aimed to review data of the novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by analyzing all the published retrospective studies on the clinical, epidemiological, laboratory, and radiological characteristics of patients with 2019-nCoV. METHODS: We searched in four bibliographic databases PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science) for studies March 10, 2020 focused on the clinical, epidemiological, laboratory, and radiological characteristics of patients with 2019-nCoV for meta-analysis. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to quality assessment, and publication bias was analyzed by Egger's test. In the meta-analysis, a random-effects model with Stata/SE software, v.14.1 (StataCorp, College Station, TX) was used to obtain a pooled incidence rate. RESULTS: Fifty studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis with 8815 patients and the mean age was 46 years and 4647 (52.7%) were male. The pooled incidences rate of clinical symptoms were: fever (83%, 95% CI: 0.77, 0.89), cough (59%, 95% CI: 0.48, 0.69), myalgia or fatigue (31%, 95% CI: 0.23, 0.39), sputum production (29%, 95% CI: 0.21, 0.39), and dyspnea (19%, 95% CI: 0.12, 0.26). The pooled incidence rate of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was (22%, 95% CI: 0.00, 0.60). CONCLUSION: The results of this systemic review and meta-analysis present a quantitative pooled incidence rate of different characters of 2019-nCoV and has great potential to develop diagnosis and patient's stratification in 2019-nCoV. However, this conclusions of this study still requisite to be warranted by more careful design, larger sample size multivariate studies to corroborate the results of this meta-analysis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".