Effects of immunomodulatory therapies on COVID-19 prognosis in moderate-to-critically ill patients: A systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Hyper-inflammatory response to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) resulting from excess immunological activities, usually called the cytokine storm, has been associated with severe illness and poor prognosis of COVID-19. This systematic review aimed to evaluate available evidence for associated effects of immune-modulators in Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapy for informed clinical decisions. Methods: A systematic review was conducted with search for eligible articles in the databases of Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, Scopus and MedRxiv.org up to 25 August 2020. Using relevant keywords for the search, studies on the use of immunotherapy in COVID-19 were considered eligible, but only original articles were included. Case reports, reviews, commentaries, and correspondences were excluded. Risks of bias of individual studies was assessed by the Newcastle- Ottawa scale for observational studies. Results: A total of 771 articles were screened and 24 clinical studies were included. Among these were 3 studies on anakinra, 1 study each on itolizumab and siltuximab, and 19 studies on tocilizumab in the therapy of moderate-to-critical COVID-19. Findings showed that all the clinical studies but 3, demonstrated good clinical outcomes associated with immune-modulatory therapies in COVID-19, but these studies had several limitations at the study and outcome levels. Conclusion: The reviewed studies demonstrated the potential efficacy of immunomodulators to improve clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients, including older patients with several comorbidities. This supports the necessity of randomized trials of these drugs in large populations.
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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.139 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it