MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297224910 · doi:10.3390/jcm11195656

Clinical Outcomes of Individuals with COVID-19 and Tuberculosis during the Pre-Vaccination Period of the Pandemic: A Systematic Review

2022· review· en· W4297224910 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tulip A. Jhaveri, Celia Fung, Allison N. LaHood, Andrew Lindeborg, Chengbo Zeng, Rifat Rahman, Paul Bain, Gustavo E. Velásquez, Carole D. Mitnick

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesHarvard University Center for AIDS Research
KeywordsMedicinePandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)VaccinationPeriod (music)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakTuberculosisSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)VirologyInternal medicineOutbreakDiseasePathologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis, like COVID-19, is most often a pulmonary disease. The COVID-19 pandemic has severely disrupted tuberculosis services in myriad ways: health facility closures, lockdowns, travel bans, overwhelmed healthcare systems, restricted export of antituberculous drugs, etc. The effects of the shared risk on outcomes of the two diseases is not known, particularly for the first year of the pandemic, during the period before COVID-19 vaccines became widely available. OBJECTIVE: We embarked on a systematic review to elucidate the consequences of tuberculosis on COVID-19 outcomes and of COVID-19 on tuberculosis outcomes during the pre-vaccination period of the pandemic. METHODS: The systematic review protocol is registered in PROSPERO. We conducted an initial search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, WHO coronavirus database, medRxiv, bioRxiv, preprints.org, and Google Scholar using terms relating to COVID-19 and tuberculosis. We selected cohort and case-control studies for extraction and assessed quality with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: We identified 2108 unique abstracts published between December 2019 and January 2021. We extracted data from 18 studies from 8 countries. A total of 650,317 persons had a diagnosis of COVID-19, and 4179 had a diagnosis of current or prior tuberculosis. We explored links between tuberculosis and COVID-19 incidence, mortality, and other adverse outcomes. Nine studies reported on mortality and 13 on other adverse outcomes; results on the association between tuberculosis and COVID-19 mortality/adverse outcomes were heterogenous. Tuberculosis outcomes were not fully available in any studies, due to short follow-up (maximum of 3 months after COVID-19 diagnosis), so the effects of COVID-19 on tuberculosis outcomes could not be assessed. Much of the rapid influx of literature on tuberculosis and COVID-19 during this period was published on preprint servers, and therefore not peer-reviewed. It offered limited examination of the effect of tuberculosis on COVID-19 outcomes and even less on the effect of COVID-19 on tuberculosis treatment outcomes.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.009
Bibliometrics0.0100.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.207
GPT teacher head0.571
Teacher spread0.364 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MedicineSame topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207