MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387809306 · doi:10.15789/2220-7619-mas-15632

Monkeypox: a systematic review of epidemiology, pathogenesis, manifestations, and outcomes

2023· review· en· W4387809306 on OpenAlexaffabout
SeyedAhmad SeyedAlinaghi, Amir Masoud Afsahi, Arian Afzalian, Ramin Shahidi, Seyed Saeed Tamehri Zadeh, Sanaz Varshochi, Mohsen Dashti, Afsaneh Ghasemzadeh, Ava Pashaei, Parinaz Paranjkhoo, Zohal Parmoon, Sahar Nooralioghli Parikhani, Ahmadreza Shamsabadi, Pourya Pezeshgi, Sepide Ahmadi, Ghazal Arjmand, Mohammad Javaherian, Hooman Ebrahimi, Amirali Karimi, Esmaeil Mehraeen, Shayesteh Jahanfar

Bibliographic record

VenueRussian Journal of Infection and Immunity · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicPoxvirus research and outbreaks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEpidemiologyMonkeypoxSystematic reviewChecklistRashMortality ratePediatricsMEDLINEInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction. Since May 2022, an unusually large number of new monkeypox infections-a previously rare viral zoonotic disease, mainly reported from central and western Africa has been reported globally, and the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a global health emergency in July 2022. We aimed to systematically review the monkeypox virus epidemiology, pathogenesis, transmission, presentations, and outcomes. Materials and methods. Our aim is to systematically review the epidemiology, pathogenesis, manifestations, and outcomes of Monkeypox disease. We searched the keywords in the online databases of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science and investigated all English articles until December 2022. In order to ascertain the findings, this study adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. In order to optimize the quality, this review study benefits from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. To minimize any probable bias risk, we utilized the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) risk assessment tool. Results. The most prevalent symptoms were rash and fever. The infection was accompanied by different complications such as, but not limited to, encephalitis (mainly in children), septicemia, bacterial cellulitis, retropharyngeal and parapharyngeal abscesses, etc. A wide range of hospitalization from 3.7% to 100% has been reported. The mortality rate ranged from 0% to 23%, which mainly occurred in infants and children. High mortality of the monkeypox rate was reported among pregnant women. The mortality rate of monkeypox is lower among women and those who received the smallpox vaccine compared to men and those who did not receive the vaccine. A wide range of the overall second-rate attack was reported, which is more pronounced in unvaccinated patients. Conclusion. In our systematic review of 35 studies on monkeypox, we cast light on the existing evidence on its epidemiology, pathogenesis, manifestation, and outcomes. Further studies are needed to elucidate the natural history of the disease in various patients’ population, as well as detailing the monkeypox attack rate.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.758

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRussian Journal of Infection and ImmunitySame topicPoxvirus research and outbreaksFrench-language works237,207