Immune Response Dynamics and Biomarkers in COVID-19 Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The immune response dynamics in COVID-19 patients remain a subject of intense investigation due to their implications for disease severity and treatment outcomes. We examined changes in leukocyte levels, eosinophil activity, and cytokine profiles in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods: Serum samples were collected within the first 10 days of hospitalization/confirmed infection and analyzed for eosinophil granule proteins (EGP) and cytokines. Information from medical records including comorbidities, clinical symptoms, medications, and complete blood counts were collected at the time of admission, during hospitalization and at follow up approximately 3 months later. Results: Serum levels of eotaxin, type 1 and type 2 cytokines, and alarmin cytokines were elevated in COVID-19 patients, highlighting the heightened immune response (p < 0.05). However, COVID-19 patients exhibited lower levels of eosinophils and eosinophil degranulation products compared to hospitalized controls (p < 0.05). Leukocyte counts increased consistently from admission to follow-up, indicative of recovery. Conclusion: Attenuated eosinophil activity alongside elevated chemokine and cytokine levels during active infection, highlights the complex interplay of immune mediators in the pathogenesis COVID-19 and underscores the need for further investigation into immune biomarkers and treatment strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".