Serological markers and long <scp>COVID</scp>—A rapid systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Long COVID is highly heterogeneous, often debilitating, and may last for years after infection. The aetiology of long COVID remains uncertain. Examination of potential serological markers of long COVID, accounting for clinical covariates, may yield emergent pathophysiological insights. METHODS: In adherence to PRISMA guidelines, we carried out a rapid review of the literature. We searched Medline and Embase for primary observational studies that compared IgG response in individuals who experienced COVID-19 symptoms persisting ≥12 weeks post-infection with those who did not. We examined relationships between serological markers and long COVID status and investigated sources of inter-study variability, such as severity of acute illness, long COVID symptoms assessed and target antigen(s). RESULTS: Of 8018 unique records, we identified 29 as being eligible for inclusion in synthesis. Definitions of long COVID varied. In studies that reported anti-nucleocapsid (N) IgG (n = 10 studies; n = 989 participants in aggregate), full or partial anti-Spike IgG (i.e. the whole trimer, S1 or S2 subgroups, or receptor binding domain, n = 19 studies; n = 2606 participants), or neutralizing response (n = 7 studies; n = 1123 participants), we did not find strong evidence to support any difference in serological markers between groups with and without persisting symptoms. However, most studies did not account for severity or level of care required during acute illness, and other potential confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Pooling of studies would enable more robust exploration of clinical and serological predictors among diverse populations. However, substantial inter-study variations hamper comparability. Standardized reporting practices would improve the quality, consistency and comprehension of study findings.
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 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 | 0.032 | 0.161 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".