Two-Phase Immune Responses of COVID-19 and Therapeutic Approaches
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The novel coronavirus disease 2019 spread rapidly worldwide and disease was announced a pandemic by the WHO. Standard therapeutic strategy against COVID-19 is lacking. Regarding to the two-phase pathogenesis of the COVID-19 (immune defense-based protective and postinitial inflammation-driven damaging phases, different therapeutic regimens including antiviral agents (e.g., lopinavir/ritonavir, remdesivir, ribavirin, oseltamivir, and sofosbuvir, etc.), some antibiotics and immunomodulatory (chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine) and anti inflammatory agents (corticosteroids) have been considered in hospitals for COVID-19 patients, but balancing theirbenefits and potential risk is of great importance [1-7].Immune-boosting strategies (e.g., anti-sera or pegylated IFNα) and antiviral therapy may be of great importance in the initial phase or non-severe stages, while immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory approaches can be used for halting tissue damage and managing the symptoms in the inflammatory phase. There are conflicting results in prescribing corticosteroids or immunomodulation for COVID-19 patients due to paradoxical negative effects (risk of death, secondary bacterial infections and longer hospitalization) [8-9]. Activation of coagulation pathwaysis also associated with increased proinflammatory cytokines, resulting in multiorgan injury. Severe COVID‐19 had disseminated intravascular coagulation, leading to the risk of venous thromboembolism [10], where naproxen (for antiplatelet and anti-inflammatory and anticoagulative effects) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH; anti-inflammatory properties) may be considered for patients. It has been suggested that LMWH is contemplated because of concerns because of the presence of thrombi in the pulmonary circulation for those in patients withraised d-dimer.However, effective therapeutic approach requires balancing harmful and beneficial effects of regimens, to be prescribed by precision. Also, two-phase pathophysiology and immune responses of COVID-19 should not be underemphasized for treatment of patients.
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.
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 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it