Clinical manifestations of human Mpox infection: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Little is known about the ongoing monkeypox (mpox) outbreak, and the clinical features of mpox in patients worldwide have not been rigorously analysed. Thus, we aimed to investigate the clinical features associated with mpox infection and understand the pathophysiology and characteristics of the disease. For this systematic review and meta‐analysis, we searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for articles published till 16 September 2022. We used a random effects model to calculate the pooled prevalence and 95% confidence interval (CI). We used the I2 statistic to assess heterogeneity, Egger's test to assess publication bias, 95% prediction interval to determine the level of uncertainty, and the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale and Joanna Briggs Institute quality assessment tool to assess the risk of bias. Twenty‐six relevant articles from 19 countries across 5 continents were included, and data on 5472 mpox patients with 18 unique features were analysed. The pooled prevalence of clinical features of mpox were rash (85.7%, 95% CI: 68.3–94.3; k = 21), chills (77.8%, 95% CI: 70.5–83.7; k = 3), and fever (62.3%, 95% CI: 51.3–71.6; k = 25), lymphadenopathy (58.6%, 95% CI: 47.2–69.2; k = 21), lethargy or exhaustion (46.8%, 95% CI: 30.7–63.5; k = 14), pruritus (40.6%, 95% CI: 28.5–54.0; k = 5), myalgia (36.0%, 95% CI: 24.3–49.7; k = 16), headache (34.6%, 95% CI: 23.4–47.8; k = 17), skin ulcer (31.1%, 95% CI: 18.6–47.1; k = 7), abdomen symptom (24.2%, 95% CI: 17.9–31.9; k = 11), pharyngitis (23.0%, 95% CI: 12.7–37.9; k = 14), respiratory symptom (19.5%, 95% CI: 6.8–44.6; k = 6), nausea or vomiting (13.0%, 95% CI: 4.6–31.9; k = 3), scrotal or penile oedema (10.7%, 95% CI: 6.3–17.7; k = 4), conjunctivitis (7.1%, 95% CI: 2.4–18.9; k = 6), and death (0.9%, 95% CI: 0.4–2.0; k = 26). This is the first international and comprehensive study to examine all clinical presentations of human mpox infection. Our systematic review proposes a comprehensive understanding of the current mpox outbreak and may serve as key data for future studies on the pathological mechanisms and epidemiology of mpox infections.
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 | 0.013 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".