Auxiliary screening COVID-19 by computed tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic remains rampant in many countries/regions. Improving the positive detection rate of COVID-19 infection is an important measure for the control and prevention of this pandemic. This meta-analysis aims to systematically summarize the current characteristics of the computed tomography (CT) auxiliary screening methods for COVID-19 infection in the real world. Methods: Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, CNKI, and Wanfang databases were searched for relevant articles published prior to 1 September 2022. Data on specificity, sensitivity, positive/negative likelihood ratio, area under curve (AUC), and diagnostic odds ratio (dOR) were calculated purposefully. Results: One hundred and fifteen studies were included with 51,500 participants in the meta-analysis. Among these studies, the pooled estimates for AUC of CT in confirmed cases, and CT in suspected cases to predict COVID-19 diagnosis were 0.76 and 0.85, respectively. The CT in confirmed cases dOR was 5.51 (95% CI: 3.78-8.02). The CT in suspected cases dOR was 13.12 (95% CI: 11.07-15.55). Conclusion: Our findings support that CT detection may be the main auxiliary screening method for COVID-19 infection in the real world.
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 | 0.009 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".