Therapeutic potential of ivermectin as add on treatment in COVID 19: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current management of COVID-19 is mostly limited to general supportive care and symptomatic treatment. Ivermectin is a broad-spectrum anti-parasitic drug used widely for the treatment of onchocerciasis and lymphatic filariasis. Apart from its anti-parasitic effect it also exhibits antiviral activity against a number of viruses both in vitro and in vivo. Hence, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the currently available data on the therapeutic potential of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 as add on therapy. A total of 629 patients were included in the 4 studies and all were COVID-19 RT-PCR positive. Among them, 397 patients received ivermectin along with usual therapy. The random effect model showed the overall pooled OR to be 0.53 (95%CI: 0.29 to0.96) for the primary outcome (all-cause mortality) which was statistically significant (P=0.04). Similarly, the random effect model revealed that adding ivermectin led to significant clinical improvement compared to usual therapy (OR=1.98, 95% CI: 1.11 to 3.53, P=0.02). However, this should be inferred cautiously as the quality of evidence is very low. Currently, many clinical trials are on-going, and definitive evidence for repurposing this drug for COVID-19 patients will emerge only in the future.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it