MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392200770 · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-55597-2

Neuroimaging findings in children with COVID-19 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4392200770 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ghida Safadieh, Rania El Majzoub, Linda Abou‐Abbas

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroimagingMeta-analysisMedicineObservational studyNeurovascular bundleSystematic reviewMEDLINEPediatricsPathologyPsychiatryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted individuals differently, and there's been a growing body of evidence pointing to neurological complications caused by the virus. However, our understanding of the range of neurological issues linked to SARS-CoV-2 infection in children is limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the abnormal neuroimaging findings in pediatric COVID-19 patients, shedding light on this crucial aspect of the disease's impact on children. We conducted an extensive search in the PubMed, Medline, and ScienceDirect databases for observational studies reporting neuroimaging findings of the brain and spinal cord in children with COVID-19 between December 1, 2019, and October 30, 2021. Grey literature sources, including medRxiv and Google Scholar, were also explored. Pooled proportions of abnormal neuroimaging findings, categorized into neurovascular findings, ADEM-like lesions, encephalitic pattern, myelitis, transient splenial lesions, and other anomalies, were calculated using a random-effects model. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed using the χ2 statistic for pooled proportions and the inconsistency index I2. The Quality of the studies was evaluated using the NIH Quality Assessment Tool and the adapted Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Our search yielded 9,605 articles, with 96 studies (involving 327 pediatric patients) included in the qualitative analysis. Of these, five reports (encompassing 111 patients) underwent quantitative analysis. The pooled proportion of pediatric COVID-19 patients with neurological symptoms and exhibiting abnormal neuroimaging findings was 43.74%. These findings were further categorized into neurovascular findings (8.22%), ADEM-like lesions (7.69%), encephalitic pattern (13.95%), myelitis (4.60%), transient splenial lesions (16.26%), and other abnormalities (12.03%). Insignificant between-study heterogeneity was observed in all categories, and our analysis did not reveal significant publication bias. In conclusion, a substantial proportion of pediatric COVID-19 patients with neurological symptoms have abnormal neuroimaging findings, underscoring the need for vigilant monitoring of neurological complications in this vulnerable population. Standardized reporting and long-term follow-up studies are essential to fully understand the implications of these findings. Collaborative research efforts will deepen our understanding of COVID-19's neurological dimensions in children and enhance clinical care for this population.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.026
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19French-language works237,207