MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318676761 · doi:10.1155/2023/1068000

Epstein Barr Virus Reactivation during COVID-19 Hospitalization Significantly Increased Mortality/Death in SARS-CoV-2(+)/EBV(+) than SARS-CoV-2(+)/EBV(−) Patients: A Comparative Meta-Analysis

2023· review· en· W4318676761 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sivananthan Manoharan, Lee Ying Ying

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Clinical Practice · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKawasaki Disease and Coronary Complications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisSubgroup analysisVirusCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Epstein–Barr virusSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)VirologyInternal medicineImmunologyDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) reactivation in acute-phase of COVID-19 disease was recently discovered but it is not clear in terms of degree of mortality caused, and this was the aim of the current study. Six databases and three non‐databases were thoroughly searched, independently. The articles related to non‐human study (abstract, in vitro, in vivo, in silico, case study, poster, and review articles) were excluded for main analysis. Four articles related to mortality linked to EBV reactivation were systematically identified and included in the qualitative and quantitative analyses. Based on proportional meta-analysis of 4 studies, 34.3% or 0.343 (95% CI: 0.189–0.516; I2 = 74.6) mortality related to EBV reactivation was identified. To address high heterogeneity, subgroup meta-analysis was carried out. Based on subgroup analysis, 26.6% or 0.266 (95% CI: 0.191–0.348; I2 = 0) with no heterogeneity was identified. Interestingly, in comparative meta-analysis, EBV(−)/SARS-CoV-2(+) patients had statistically lesser mortality (9.9%) than EBV(+)/SARS-CoV-2(+) patients (23.6%) where RR = 2.31 (95% CI: 1.34–3.99; <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"> <a:mi>p</a:mi> <a:mo>=</a:mo> <a:mn>0.003</a:mn> </a:math> ; I2 = 6%). This finding is equivalent to the absolute mortality effect of 130 more per 1000 COVID-19 patients (95% CI: 34–296). Furthermore, based on statistical analysis, D-dimer was not statistically significantly different ( <c:math xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M2"> <c:mi>p</c:mi> <c:mo>&gt;</c:mo> <c:mn>0.05</c:mn> </c:math> ) between the groups although studies have shown that D-dimer was statistically significantly different ( <e:math xmlns:e="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M3"> <e:mi>p</e:mi> <e:mo>&lt;</e:mo> <e:mn>0.05</e:mn> </e:math> ) between these groups. Based on the inclusion and analysis of low risk of bias and high quality of articles graded with Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS), when COVID-19 patients’ health state is gradually worsening, EBV reactivation needs to be suspected because EBV reactivation is a possible marker for COVID-19 disease severity.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.439
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.481
GPT teacher head0.569
Teacher spread0.088 · 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.

Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations30
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Clinical PracticeSame topicKawasaki Disease and Coronary ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207