Potentially Asymptomatic Infection of Monkeypox Virus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Monkeypox is a global public health concern, given the recent outbreaks in non-endemic countries where little scientific evidence exists on the disease. Specifically, there is a lack of data on asymptomatic monkeypox virus infection. This study aims to evaluate the overall prevalence of asymptomatic monkeypox virus infection. Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we performed an extensive literature search in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, EMBASE, EBSCOHost, Cochrane, and preprint servers (medRxiv, arXiv, bioRxiv, BioRN, ChiRxiv, ChiRN, and SSRN) and assessed all published articles till September 2022. Primary studies reporting monkeypox infections among asymptomatic participants were included after quality assessment. The characteristics of the study and information on the number of cases and symptomatic status were extracted from the included studies. The heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the I2 statistic. Publication bias was analyzed using funnel plots and Egger regression tests. The primary outcome was the pooled prevalence of asymptomatic infections within the examined population. Results: A total of 16 studies were included for qualitative synthesis, while five studies, including 645 individuals, were included for quantitative synthesis. There was substantial heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 94.86%; p < 0.01), with a pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections in the studied population of 10.2% (95%CI, 2.5−17.9%). Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests that many people infected with the monkeypox virus are asymptomatic and difficult to detect. Therefore, prompt detection of these cases of monkeypox virus and appropriate subsequent management is of utmost importance to global public health.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".