Clinical and laboratory diagnosis of monkeypox (mpox): Current status and future directions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emergence and rapid spread of the monkeypox virus (MPXV) to non-endemic countries has brought this once obscure pathogen to the forefront of global public health. Given the range of conditions that cause similar skin lesions, and because the clinical manifestation may often be atypical in the current mpox outbreak, it can be challenging to diagnose patients based on clinical signs and symptoms. With this perspective in mind, laboratory-based diagnosis assumes a critical role for the clinical management, along with the implementation of countermeasures. Here, we review the clinical features reported in mpox patients, the available laboratory tests for mpox diagnosis, and discuss the principles, advances, advantages, and drawbacks of each assay. We also highlight the diagnostic platforms with the potential to guide ongoing clinical response, particularly those that increase diagnostic capacity in low- and middle-income countries. With the outlook of this evolving research area, we hope to provide a resource to the community and inspire more research and the development of diagnostic alternatives with applications to this and future public health crises.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it