MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288033791 · doi:10.3389/fmed.2022.872627

Coinfection of COVID-19 and Dengue: A Case Report

2022· article· en· W4288033791 on OpenAlexaff
Chowdhury Nusaiba Binte Sayed Prapty, Nafisa Ahmed, Yusha Araf, Zhijun Yang, Jingbo Zhai, Mohammad Jakir Hosen, Chunfu Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMosquito-borne diseases and control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoinfectionDengue feverMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PandemicPneumoniaDengue virusVirologyPediatricsIntensive care medicineImmunologyInternal medicineVirus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the COVID-19 pandemic takes the world by storm, dengue-endemic regions risk developing a co-epidemic in COVID-19/dengue coinfection. With both infections as causes of high morbidity rates, the potentially fatal outcomes of coinfection are even greater, and several cases are emerging, severe and moderate, showing how common it may become in certain regions. The case reported here shows a 38-year-old male patient with high-grade fever, with complaints of nausea, joint, and muscle aches, all characteristic symptoms of COVID-19 and dengue. Initially suspected of being infected with COVID-19 only, the RT-PCR test of the nasopharyngeal swab confirmed COVID-19 infection, while the positive reactivity to IgG and IgM in the Dengue Duo test revealed a dengue coinfection. Except for the persistent high fever, the Patient's symptoms were not severe, although the tests confirmed the infections to be "moderate to severe" and showed steady and rapid recovery. The tests showed some interesting results, which provided additional research opportunities. Overall, this case report illustrates the existence of coinfections in the Philippines, demonstrating the difficulty in distinguishing the two infections and the need for proper diagnosis, prevention, and management measures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.488
Threshold uncertainty score0.537

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in MedicineSame topicMosquito-borne diseases and controlFrench-language works237,207