Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Gastrointestinal Involvement: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The World Health Organization (WHO) announced the Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) toward the end of January 2020. There is still limited evidence to explain the gastrointestinal involvement in COVID-19. In this study, we aimed to further investigate current evidence describing the gastrointestinal involvement in COVID-19 patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020181584). A systematic search of literature for observational and randomized controlled trial was conducted in PubMed, PubMed central, and Google Scholar through April 16, 2020. Two reviewers independently searched and selected. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality assessment tool.<strong> </strong></p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1,480 articles were screened from which 12 articles with 5584 subjects were selected. SARS-CoV-2 can invade human body by binding to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) receptor which also located to small intestinal epithelial cells, crypt cells and colon. The virus itself may cause disorders of the intestinal flora. The diagnosis should be based on a set of symptoms diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting, abdominal discomfort or pain, combined with positivity of faecal PCR test. Treatment of COVID-19 mainly is supportive care. The probiotic may modulate the gut microbiota to alter the gastrointestinal symptoms and reduced enteritis, ventilator associated pneumonia, and reverse certain side effect of antibiotics<strong>.</strong></p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our synthesis of literature showed that there was no good evidence yet in overall area of gastrointestinal manifestations in COVID-19. Future research is needed to explore all areas, especially in mechanism and treatments</p>
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 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 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".