Effectiveness of low-dose radiation therapy to improve mortality in coronavirus disease (COVID-19): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Before antibiotics were available, X-ray therapy was used to treat pneumonia, but its effectiveness is unknown. It was not fully understood how low-dose radiation could reduce inflammation in early attempts to treat pneumonia with X-rays. Exposure to low-dose radiation therapy (LDRT) may activate anti-inflammatory molecules such as TGF-b1 and IL-10. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine whether LDRT effectively treats COVID-19-associated pneumonia. Methods This study followed the PRISMA guidelines (Principles for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). A search was conducted on Google Scholar and PubMed for articles published before June 12, 2022. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the included research quality. Results In these studies, patients were given lung radiation at doses ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 Gy. Except for one study, all clinical, radiological, and survival outcomes improved. The study showed that whole-lung radiation at doses of 0.5–1.5 Gy was beneficial to patients with COVID-19-associated pneumonia who were oxygen-dependent. In these studies, the reported SR was 59% (95% CI, 44–75%). Conclusions LDRT has the potential to be a viable therapy option, although large-scale randomized trials are necessary, particularly in the elderly, who are more at risk of mortality from COVID-19.
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 | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".