COVID-19 in Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 pandemic has been an enormous global health burden, resulting in hundreds of millions of documented infections and more than 3 million deaths. Increasing reports characterizing the effects of COVID-19 in pediatric populations have been published during the course of the pandemic. We performed a systematic review to assess the scope of diagnosis, treatment, and management of COVID-19 in pediatric patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase for studies published between January 1, 2020, and May 1, 2021. Each result was screened by 2 authors independently, and discordant findings were adjudicated by a third party. Data extracted included demographic data, symptom data, and clinical data including mortality, severe illness, laboratory data, radiologic data, and treatment. Bias assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for Cohort Studies. RESULTS: We found a total of 16,266 search results, and we accepted 63 manuscripts into the review. The quality of evidence was low. It was difficult to estimate the risk of mortality in pediatric patients with COVID-19 given the quality of the evidence, but overall it is likely below 1%. The most common symptoms in symptomatic pediatric COVID-19 patients were fever (58%) and cough (50%). There was a high proportion of asymptomatic infection (65%). DISCUSSION: Pediatric COVID-19 infection is mild and frequently asymptomatic. There is a low risk of severe illness or death in children who contract COVID-19. High-quality studies should be conducted to develop best practices for prevention, diagnosis, and management of symptomatic illness.
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 | 0.004 | 0.327 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".