COVID-19 infection complicated by Guillain-Barre Syndrome: a systematic review of clinical features, pathogenic mechanism, and respiratory failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) declared a pandemic in March 2020 caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Given the neurotropism feature of the coronavirus and growing number of COVID-19 associated neurological disorders, including Guillain Barre syndrome (GBS), we conducted a systematic review to thoroughly describe the clinical features, diagnostic workup, and clinical outcome of COVID-19 associated GBS in 78 cases. Methods: We identified case reports and case series of COVID-19 associated GBS by conducting a search in the PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. We assessed the quality of studies using an appraisal checklist presented by Cochrane Murad et al. Extracted data included demographic characteristics, clinical presentation, diagnostic workup, and outcome. Results: The systematic search yielded a total of 60 articles reporting 78 patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 associated GBS. The patients were mainly male (65.3%) with an average age of 57 years. The ascending symmetrical paresis was the most common presentation (79.4%), with demyelinating pattern in 54 patients (79.4%). The CSF analysis showed albuminocytologic dissociation in 48 patients (75%). The mortality of COVID-19 associated GBS was estimated as 6.4% attributable to progressive respiratory failure. Conclusion: Given the associated morbidities such as respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19 associated GBS, its timely detection is crucial to prevent poor clinical outcomes. On the other hand, clinicians must be vigilant to identify the clinical findings of SARS-CoV-2 infection in newly diagnosed GBS patients, as this might be a neurological complication of the subclinical viral infection.
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 | 0.114 | 0.415 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".