MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377018944 · doi:10.1080/23744235.2023.2214609

Comparative evaluation of the clinical presentation and epidemiology of the 2022 and previous Mpox outbreaks: a rapid review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4377018944 on OpenAlexaff
George N. Okoli, Paul Van Caeseele, Nicole Askin, Ahmed M Abou-Setta

Bibliographic record

VenueInfectious Diseases · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicPoxvirus research and outbreaks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaGeorge & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEpidemiologyMeta-analysisOutbreakPresentation (obstetrics)Clinical epidemiologyPediatricsIntensive care medicinePathologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background In 2022, there were outbreaks of Mpox where the disease is not endemic. We summarised and compared the findings from published observational studies on the clinical presentation and epidemiology of the 2022 and previous outbreaks of Mpox.Methods We registered a review protocol with the Open Science Framework (osf.io/j3kb7). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL and Scopus databases, and relevant websites up to August 30, 2022. Retrieved literature citations were screened for eligibility, and summary clinical presentation and epidemiological data from the included studies were pooled, when possible, using an inverse variance, random-effects model.Results Seventy-nine studies met the eligibility. Irrespective of outbreak, fever, headache, myalgia, lymphadenopathy, pleomorphic skin lesions, oral lesions, and sore throat were potentially highly relevant Mpox manifestations, while conjunctivitis, cough, and possibly reactivation of varicella zoster virus may be part of the clinical presentation. The mean incubation period for the 2022 outbreaks was 7.4 d (6.4–8.4 d, I2 64.2%; 4 studies: 270 cases) and for previous outbreaks, 12.9 d (10.4–15.5 d; one study: 31 cases), p < .001. None of the male cases from previous outbreaks was reported to have sex with men (MSM) whereas almost all reported male cases from the 2022 outbreak were MSM. Concomitant sexually transmitted infections and perianal lesions were reported only among male cases from the 2022 outbreak, with the cases mostly presenting with genital lesions.Conclusions The 2022 Mpox outbreaks appear to be mostly among MSM and have a lower incubation period compared with previous outbreaks.Key messages79 studies met the review’s inclusion criteria.The 2022 Mpox outbreaks appear to have shorter incubation period compared with previous outbreaks.Established clinical presentation of Mpox includes fever, headache, myalgia, lymphadenopathy, pleomorphic skin lesions, oral lesions, and sore throat.Almost all reported cases from the 2022 Mpox outbreaks were men who had sex with men (MSM).Concomitant sexually transmitted infections and perianal lesions were only reported among cases from the 2022 Mpox outbreaks.A significantly higher proportion of Mpox cases from the 2022 outbreaks had genital lesions compared with cases from previous outbreaks.The 2022 Mpox outbreaks appear to be mostly among MSM.

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)0.025
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: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.044
Bibliometrics0.0180.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.351
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.152 · 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 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

Citations18
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfectious DiseasesSame topicPoxvirus research and outbreaksFrench-language works237,207