MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111732475 · doi:10.1002/adtp.202000173

Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID‐19) Pandemic: From Diagnosis to Treatment Strategies

2020· review· en· W3111732475 on OpenAlexaff
Zhina Hadisi, Tavia Walsh, Seyed Mohammad Hossein Dabiri, Amir Seyfoori, David Hamdi, Bahram Mirani, Erik Pagan, Armando Jardim, Mohsen Akbari

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced Therapeutics · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsTed Rogers Centre for Heart ResearchUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicCoronavirusCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)OutbreakMiddle East respiratory syndromeDiseaseMedicinePublic healthIntensive care medicineSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirusGlobal healthVirologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)Pathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2002 and the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) in 2012, the world is now combating a third large-scale outbreak caused by a coronavirus, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). After the rapid spread of SARS-coronavirus (CoV)-2 (the virus causing COVID-19) from its origin in China, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) on January 30, 2020. From the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, a significant number of studies have been conducted to better understand the biology and pathogenesis of the novel coronavirus, and to aid in developing effective treatment regimens, therapeutics, and vaccines. This review focuses on the recent advancements in the rapidly evolving areas of clinical care and management of COVID-19. The emerging strategies for the diagnosis and treatment of this disease are explored, and the development of effective vaccines is reviewed.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.257
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Other design
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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced TherapeuticsSame topicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchFrench-language works237,207