MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416451548 · doi:10.1002/hsr2.71532

Evaluation of Chest CT Scan Findings in Pediatric Patients With COVID‐19: A Retrospective Descriptive Study

2025· article· en· W4416451548 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Hadi Gharib, Dayan Amanian, Reza Zahedpasha

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Science Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputed tomographyPleural effusionRetrospective cohort studyLungRespiratory diseaseMedical imaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background and Aims COVID‐19 in children presents with varying severity. Identifying characteristic chest CT features is essential for accurate diagnosis and screening. This study aimed to evaluate CT patterns in pediatric COVID‐19 cases to enhance diagnostic accuracy. Methods This retrospective cross‐sectional study analyzed chest CT scans of 42 children with confirmed COVID‐19 at Children's Hospital, Gorgan, Iran. A 14‐item checklist assessed demographics, lung involvement, and radiological features. Descriptive statistics and Fisher's exact test were used for analysis. Results Ground‐glass opacities (GGO) were the most common finding (92.9%), followed by consolidation (54.8%). Both were significantly associated with peripheral distribution ( p < 0.001) and lower zone involvement ( p < 0.001 for GGO, p ≈ 0.002 for consolidation). Lesions affected peripheral lung zones (45.24%) or both central and peripheral zones (40.48%), with consolidation predominantly in the latter ( p < 0.001). Notably, 7.1% of children had no visible lung lesions. Cases with < 25% lung involvement showed significant correlation with GGO ( p < 0.001). Pleural effusion was observed in 4.8%, while pericardial effusion and mediastinal lymphadenopathy were absent. Conclusion Pediatric COVID‐19 commonly presents with GGO, consolidation, and peripheral lung lesions, with rare occurrence of features such as pleural effusion compared to adults. These differences may refine diagnostic strategies for pediatric 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.092
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.092
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.396 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Science ReportsSame topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207