Prevalencia de trastornos del gusto en niños y adolescentes con infección por coronavirus: revisión sistemática
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: To assess the prevalence of taste disorders in children and adolescents diagnosed with coronavirus infection according to the evidence reported in the scientific literature. Materials and Methods: A systematic review of articles published between December 19, 2019, and December 20, 2020 in the Medline, Lilacs, BVS, Cochrane, SCOPUS and ScienceDirect databases. The information search strategy was based on the classic PRISMA flow diagram. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the risk of bias. Results: 443 articles were found in six databases, and a total of 7 articles were included after evaluation according to the selection criteria. The articles addressed the variable of taste disorders in three ways: ageusia, dysgeusia and hypogeusia; finding that this clinical manifestation was present from the beginning of the infection. Conclusions: The prevalence of taste disorders in children and adolescents diagnosed with coronavirus infection is from 3.3% to 26.9%.
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 | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".