MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410825308 · doi:10.1002/jgh3.70190

Proctitis and Other Gastrointestinal Manifestations in Mpox Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

2025· review· en· W4410825308 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Prakasini Satapathy, Abhay Gaidhane, Nasir Vadia, Soumya V. Menon, Kattela Chennakesavulu, Rajashree Panigrahi, Sanjit Sah, S Govinda Rao, Khang Wen Goh, Rachana Mehta, Muhammed Shabil, Mahendra Pratap Singh, Ganesh Bushi

Bibliographic record

VenueJGH Open · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicPoxvirus research and outbreaks
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisInternal medicineProctitisSystematic reviewConfidence intervalNauseaEpidemiologyMEDLINEDiseaseUlcerative colitis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background Mpox, caused by the monkeypox virus (MPXV), is primarily recognized for its dermatologic and systemic symptoms. However, emerging evidence suggests a significant prevalence of gastrointestinal (GI) manifestations, particularly proctitis, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. Despite the growing clinical recognition of these symptoms, their epidemiology and impact remain poorly understood. This systematic review and meta‐analysis aim to quantify the prevalence of GI manifestations in Mpox patients and assess their clinical significance. Methods A systematic review following PRISMA guidelines was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, including quantitative studies published up until October 2024 that reported GI manifestations in Mpox patients. Screening and data extraction were performed using Nested Knowledge software, and study quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Meta‐analysis was conducted using R version 4.4, with heterogeneity evaluated via the I 2 statistic. Sensitivity analyses and publication bias were assessed using Doi plots and the Luis Furuya‐Kanamori (LFK) index. Results Out of 1229 records, 33 studies met the eligibility criteria, yielding a pooled prevalence of proctitis in Mpox patients at 24.75% (95% CI: 18.93%–31.04%) across 5878 participants, with high heterogeneity ( I 2 = 94.8%). The prediction interval for proctitis ranged from 1.46% to 61.76%. The pooled prevalence of other GI manifestations was 30.45% (95% CI: 18.27%–44.14%) across 2237 participants, with significant heterogeneity ( I 2 = 95.2%) and a prediction interval ranging from 0.00% to 85.28%. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the stability of these estimates, while publication bias was indicated by LFK index values exceeding 2.77. Conclusions This meta‐analysis highlights the substantial burden of GI manifestations in Mpox, particularly proctitis, with considerable variability across studies. The findings underscore the need for standardized diagnostic criteria and increased clinical recognition of GI symptoms in Mpox management. Further research into the underlying pathophysiology and integrating GI symptom assessment into Mpox surveillance and treatment strategies could enhance diagnostic accuracy and patient care outcomes.

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)0.027
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: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.040
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJGH OpenSame topicPoxvirus research and outbreaksFrench-language works237,207