MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312155724 · doi:10.1017/s0266462322002938

PD34 Neuron-specific Biomarkers Associated With Neurological Manifestations In COVID-19: An Evidence Mapping Systematic Review

2022· article· en· W4312155724 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karime Domingues, Alexandre de Fátima Cobre, Fernanda S. Tonin, Roberto Pontarolo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineAmyotrophic lateral sclerosisEnolasePediatricsPathologyBioinformaticsDiseaseBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction We aimed to map and synthesize the available evidence on neuron-specific biomarkers related to COVID-19. Methods A systematic review and qualitative evidence mapping synthesis was performed (PROSPERO-CRD42021266995). Searches were conducted in PubMed and Scopus, and complemented by manual search (July 2021). We included observational studies of any design assessing neurological biomarkers in adult patients (>18 years; with or without neurological comorbidities) diagnosed with COVID-19. Methodological quality of nonrandomized studies (case-control, cohorts) was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results Overall, 14 studies (n=485 patients) conducted in Sweden (n=4 articles, 28.5%), Germany (n=3; 21.4%), USA (n=3; 21.4%), Canada, France, Italy and Norway (n=1 study each) were included. The most reported neurological symptoms (n=13 studies, 92.8%) were headache, confusion, general weakness, loss of smell/taste, cognitive impairments and behavioral changes. Prevalent neurological conditions included encephalopathies, neuropathies, myopathies, and delirium; most critical cases presented cerebrovascular events (n=4 studies, 28.5%). Hypertension, diabetes, obesity, dyslipidemia, and chronic lung disease were the most reported comorbidities. Eight different neuron-specific biomarkers were found in primary studies: neurofilament-light chain – NfL (n=10 studies; 71.4%), glial fibrillary acidic-protein – GFAp (n=5; 35.7%), tau protein (n=5; 35.7%), neurofilament-heavy chain – NfH, S100B protein, ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase L1 - UCH-L1, neuron-specific enolase and beta protein-amyloid – Aβ (n=1 study each). These biomarkers were found both in cerebrospinal fluid and blood/plasma samples even without an evident cytokine storm. In patients with COVID-19, NfL and GFAp can act as sensitive indicators of neuroaxonal and astrocytic damages, respectively. Increased levels of NfL were significantly associated with severe COVID-19, unconsciousness and longer stay in the intensive care unit (p<0.05). Studies had an overall poor to moderate methodological quality. Conclusions We identified eight neuron-specific biomarkers that should be further studied as prognostic factors of COVID-19. These findings can also guide the development of targeted therapies against SARS-CoV-2. Additional well-designed clinical trials are needed to strengthen this evidence and help understand the mechanisms of neurological symptoms and sequelae after COVID-19 infection.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.007
Bibliometrics0.0150.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.368 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health CareSame topicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19French-language works237,207