PMC:7078824 / 7951-8607 JSONTXT

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-MONDO","denotations":[{"id":"T32","span":{"begin":262,"end":269},"obj":"Disease"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A32","pred":"mondo_id","subj":"T32","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MONDO_0100096"}],"text":"Moreover, our findings seem to indicate that after hospitalised treatment, there could be a possibility that a small proportion of clinically recovered patients may still carry a small amount of virus which is hard to detect. The current standard for diagnosing COVID19, the RT-PCR-based method, showed a high accuracy of 97% and the specific primers and probes guaranteed its diagnostic specificity, although 3% of cases may test false-negative because of potential sampling error [11]. Both cases had a positive detection (including weakly positive) three times during the follow-up, which decreased the possibility of false positives in these two cases."}

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-CLO","denotations":[{"id":"T85","span":{"begin":90,"end":91},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0001020"},{"id":"T86","span":{"begin":109,"end":110},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0001020"},{"id":"T87","span":{"begin":177,"end":178},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0001020"},{"id":"T88","span":{"begin":195,"end":200},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/NCBITaxon_10239"},{"id":"T89","span":{"begin":303,"end":304},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0001020"},{"id":"T90","span":{"begin":426,"end":430},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/UBERON_0000473"},{"id":"T91","span":{"begin":483,"end":485},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0053733"},{"id":"T92","span":{"begin":503,"end":504},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0001020"}],"text":"Moreover, our findings seem to indicate that after hospitalised treatment, there could be a possibility that a small proportion of clinically recovered patients may still carry a small amount of virus which is hard to detect. The current standard for diagnosing COVID19, the RT-PCR-based method, showed a high accuracy of 97% and the specific primers and probes guaranteed its diagnostic specificity, although 3% of cases may test false-negative because of potential sampling error [11]. Both cases had a positive detection (including weakly positive) three times during the follow-up, which decreased the possibility of false positives in these two cases."}

{"project":"LitCovid-sentences","denotations":[{"id":"T69","span":{"begin":0,"end":225},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T70","span":{"begin":226,"end":487},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T71","span":{"begin":488,"end":656},"obj":"Sentence"}],"namespaces":[{"prefix":"_base","uri":"http://pubannotation.org/ontology/tao.owl#"}],"text":"Moreover, our findings seem to indicate that after hospitalised treatment, there could be a possibility that a small proportion of clinically recovered patients may still carry a small amount of virus which is hard to detect. The current standard for diagnosing COVID19, the RT-PCR-based method, showed a high accuracy of 97% and the specific primers and probes guaranteed its diagnostic specificity, although 3% of cases may test false-negative because of potential sampling error [11]. Both cases had a positive detection (including weakly positive) three times during the follow-up, which decreased the possibility of false positives in these two cases."}

{"project":"2_test","denotations":[{"id":"32183934-32049601-29323228","span":{"begin":483,"end":485},"obj":"32049601"}],"text":"Moreover, our findings seem to indicate that after hospitalised treatment, there could be a possibility that a small proportion of clinically recovered patients may still carry a small amount of virus which is hard to detect. The current standard for diagnosing COVID19, the RT-PCR-based method, showed a high accuracy of 97% and the specific primers and probes guaranteed its diagnostic specificity, although 3% of cases may test false-negative because of potential sampling error [11]. Both cases had a positive detection (including weakly positive) three times during the follow-up, which decreased the possibility of false positives in these two cases."}

{"project":"LitCovid-PubTator","denotations":[{"id":"94","span":{"begin":152,"end":160},"obj":"Species"},{"id":"95","span":{"begin":262,"end":269},"obj":"Disease"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A94","pred":"tao:has_database_id","subj":"94","obj":"Tax:9606"},{"id":"A95","pred":"tao:has_database_id","subj":"95","obj":"MESH:C000657245"}],"namespaces":[{"prefix":"Tax","uri":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/taxonomy/"},{"prefix":"MESH","uri":"https://id.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/"},{"prefix":"Gene","uri":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/"},{"prefix":"CVCL","uri":"https://web.expasy.org/cellosaurus/CVCL_"}],"text":"Moreover, our findings seem to indicate that after hospitalised treatment, there could be a possibility that a small proportion of clinically recovered patients may still carry a small amount of virus which is hard to detect. The current standard for diagnosing COVID19, the RT-PCR-based method, showed a high accuracy of 97% and the specific primers and probes guaranteed its diagnostic specificity, although 3% of cases may test false-negative because of potential sampling error [11]. Both cases had a positive detection (including weakly positive) three times during the follow-up, which decreased the possibility of false positives in these two cases."}

{"project":"MyTest","denotations":[{"id":"32183934-32049601-29323228","span":{"begin":483,"end":485},"obj":"32049601"}],"namespaces":[{"prefix":"_base","uri":"https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/testbase"},{"prefix":"UniProtKB","uri":"https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/"},{"prefix":"uniprot","uri":"https://www.uniprot.org/uniprotkb/"}],"text":"Moreover, our findings seem to indicate that after hospitalised treatment, there could be a possibility that a small proportion of clinically recovered patients may still carry a small amount of virus which is hard to detect. The current standard for diagnosing COVID19, the RT-PCR-based method, showed a high accuracy of 97% and the specific primers and probes guaranteed its diagnostic specificity, although 3% of cases may test false-negative because of potential sampling error [11]. Both cases had a positive detection (including weakly positive) three times during the follow-up, which decreased the possibility of false positives in these two cases."}