Artificial Intelligence in COVID-19 Management: A Systematic Review
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
<p>With the development of modern technologies in the field of healthcare, the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in disease management is increasing. AI methods may assist healthcare providers in the COVID-19 era. The current study aimed to observe the efficacy and importance of AI for managing the COVID-19 pandemic. An organized search was conducted, utilizing PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane up to September 2022. Studies were considered qualified for inclusion if they met the inclusion criterion. We conducted review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. There were 52 documents that met the eligibility criteria to be included in the review. The most common item using AI during the COVID-19 era was predictive models to foretell pneumonia and mortality risks in people with COVID-19 based on medical and experimental parameters. COVID-19 mortality was related to being male and elderly based on the Artificial Neural Network (ANN) and Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) logistic regression analysis of demographics, clinical data, and laboratory tests of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. AI can predict, diagnose and model COVID-19 by using techniques such as support vector machines, decision trees, and neural networks. It is suggested that future research should deal with the design and development of AI-based tools for the management of chronic diseases such as COVID-19.</p>
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 | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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