MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3116712698 · doi:10.14740/jocmr4383

COVID-19 and Possible Pharmacological Preventive Options

2020· review· en· W3116712698 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pontus Dunér, Albert Salehi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRegimenCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PneumoniaDiseaseCoronavirusImmune systemInfectious disease (medical specialty)Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Intensive care medicineOutbreakPharmacologyImmunologyVirologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dreadful fear of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is an infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), with the deadly consequences, requires rapid development of pharmacological cures. The objective of this review is to speculate about possible pharmacological options, already available today to prevent or treat the COVID-19 in the early stage of its outbreak. A literature search across PubMed and internet was conducted. A number of studies dealing with COVID-19 were identified. The data elucidated that increased pro-inflammatory and decreased anti-inflammatory cytokines in combination with hypoxia, thromboembolism and pneumonia are involved in the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Although many drugs has been tested in monotherapy regimen with varying outcome or without desirable effect, there is still hope for better results by simultaneously targeting the virus itself and its symptoms. Theoretically, a mixture of at least two available antiviral drugs in combination with other anti-pathogenic and immune system-enhancing drugs or combination of antiviral drugs with convalescent plasma seems likely to have much better effect than the monotherapy regimen of either of these drugs.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.684
GPT teacher head0.739
Teacher spread0.055 · 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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine ResearchSame topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207