PMC:7386785 / 87025-90661 JSON TXT

Annnotations TAB JSON ListView MergeView

LitCovid-PD-FMA-UBERON

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-FMA-UBERON","denotations":[{"id":"T89","span":{"begin":865,"end":870},"obj":"Body_part"},{"id":"T90","span":{"begin":1673,"end":1678},"obj":"Body_part"},{"id":"T91","span":{"begin":1719,"end":1725},"obj":"Body_part"},{"id":"T92","span":{"begin":1739,"end":1743},"obj":"Body_part"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A89","pred":"fma_id","subj":"T89","obj":"http://purl.org/sig/ont/fma/fma9576"},{"id":"A90","pred":"fma_id","subj":"T90","obj":"http://purl.org/sig/ont/fma/fma7088"},{"id":"A91","pred":"fma_id","subj":"T91","obj":"http://purl.org/sig/ont/fma/fma228738"},{"id":"A92","pred":"fma_id","subj":"T92","obj":"http://purl.org/sig/ont/fma/fma46472"}],"text":"Study characteristics\nPatient Sampling Purpose: diagnosis COVID‐19 pneumonia ‐ to identify differences in CT imaging and clinical manifestations between pneumonia patients with and without COVID‐19, and to develop and validate a diagnostic model for COVID‐19 based on radiological semantic and clinical featuresDesign: cross‐sectional multicentre retrospective studyRecruitment:\u2028cases: consecutive patients with COVID‐19 admitted in 5 independent hospitals\u2028controls: at the same period, another 66 consecutive pneumonia patients without COVID‐19 from Meizhou People’s HospitalSample size: n = 136 (cases = 70)Inclusion criteria: patients admitted with COVID‐19 pneumonia (cases) and patients admitted with non‐COVID‐19 pneumonia (controls)Exclusion criteria: not specified for cases except those from 1 hospital (Meizhou), for cases and controls in Meizhou: after chest CT neoplasm, tuberculosis, pulmonary oedema, pulmonary contusion, aspiration pneumonia, bronchitis, any local or systemic treatment before CT scan, normal CT image without epidemiological history\nPatient characteristics and setting Facility cases: pneumonia patients with positive SARS‐CoV‐2 testFacility controls: CT pneumonia patients with consecutive negative RT‐PCRCountry: ChinaDates: 1 January 2020‐8 February 2020Symptoms and severity: pneumonia patients for cases and control; unclear severity of casesDemographics: M/F: cases 41/29, controls 43/23\u2028mean age: cases 42.9 range, 16‐69 years, controls 46.7 range, 0.3‐93 yearsExposure history: data about exposure to epidemic centres collected, but no results in the study nor in appendices\nIndex tests Systolic BP\nDiastolic BP\nRespiration rate\nHeart rate\nTemperature\nDry cough\nFatigue\nSore throat\nStuffy\nRunny nose\nTarget condition and reference standard(s) TC: COVID‐19 pneumonia\nRS: RT‐PCR and next generation sequencing for SARS‐Cov2\nFlow and timing Time interval not specified\nComparative \nNotes \nMethodological quality\nItem Authors' judgement Risk of bias Applicability concerns\nDOMAIN 1: Patient Selection\nWas a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? Yes \nWas a case‐control design avoided? Yes \nDid the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? Yes \nDid the study avoid inappropriate inclusions? No \nCould the selection of patients have introduced bias? High risk \nAre there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question? High\nDOMAIN 2: Index Test (All tests)\nWere the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? Unclear \nIf a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified? No \nCould the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias? Unclear risk \nAre there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question? Unclear\nDOMAIN 3: Reference Standard\nIs the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition? Yes \nWere the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests? Yes \nCould the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias? Low risk \nAre there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the question? Low concern\nDOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing\nWas there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard? Unclear \nDid all patients receive the same reference standard? Yes \nWere all patients included in the analysis? Yes \nCould the patient flow have introduced bias? Low risk "}

LitCovid-PD-UBERON

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-UBERON","denotations":[{"id":"T62","span":{"begin":865,"end":870},"obj":"Body_part"},{"id":"T63","span":{"begin":1673,"end":1678},"obj":"Body_part"},{"id":"T64","span":{"begin":1719,"end":1725},"obj":"Body_part"},{"id":"T65","span":{"begin":1739,"end":1743},"obj":"Body_part"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A62","pred":"uberon_id","subj":"T62","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/UBERON_0001443"},{"id":"A63","pred":"uberon_id","subj":"T63","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/UBERON_0000948"},{"id":"A64","pred":"uberon_id","subj":"T64","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/UBERON_0000341"},{"id":"A65","pred":"uberon_id","subj":"T65","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/UBERON_0000004"}],"text":"Study characteristics\nPatient Sampling Purpose: diagnosis COVID‐19 pneumonia ‐ to identify differences in CT imaging and clinical manifestations between pneumonia patients with and without COVID‐19, and to develop and validate a diagnostic model for COVID‐19 based on radiological semantic and clinical featuresDesign: cross‐sectional multicentre retrospective studyRecruitment:\u2028cases: consecutive patients with COVID‐19 admitted in 5 independent hospitals\u2028controls: at the same period, another 66 consecutive pneumonia patients without COVID‐19 from Meizhou People’s HospitalSample size: n = 136 (cases = 70)Inclusion criteria: patients admitted with COVID‐19 pneumonia (cases) and patients admitted with non‐COVID‐19 pneumonia (controls)Exclusion criteria: not specified for cases except those from 1 hospital (Meizhou), for cases and controls in Meizhou: after chest CT neoplasm, tuberculosis, pulmonary oedema, pulmonary contusion, aspiration pneumonia, bronchitis, any local or systemic treatment before CT scan, normal CT image without epidemiological history\nPatient characteristics and setting Facility cases: pneumonia patients with positive SARS‐CoV‐2 testFacility controls: CT pneumonia patients with consecutive negative RT‐PCRCountry: ChinaDates: 1 January 2020‐8 February 2020Symptoms and severity: pneumonia patients for cases and control; unclear severity of casesDemographics: M/F: cases 41/29, controls 43/23\u2028mean age: cases 42.9 range, 16‐69 years, controls 46.7 range, 0.3‐93 yearsExposure history: data about exposure to epidemic centres collected, but no results in the study nor in appendices\nIndex tests Systolic BP\nDiastolic BP\nRespiration rate\nHeart rate\nTemperature\nDry cough\nFatigue\nSore throat\nStuffy\nRunny nose\nTarget condition and reference standard(s) TC: COVID‐19 pneumonia\nRS: RT‐PCR and next generation sequencing for SARS‐Cov2\nFlow and timing Time interval not specified\nComparative \nNotes \nMethodological quality\nItem Authors' judgement Risk of bias Applicability concerns\nDOMAIN 1: Patient Selection\nWas a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? Yes \nWas a case‐control design avoided? Yes \nDid the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? Yes \nDid the study avoid inappropriate inclusions? No \nCould the selection of patients have introduced bias? High risk \nAre there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question? High\nDOMAIN 2: Index Test (All tests)\nWere the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? Unclear \nIf a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified? No \nCould the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias? Unclear risk \nAre there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question? Unclear\nDOMAIN 3: Reference Standard\nIs the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition? Yes \nWere the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests? Yes \nCould the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias? Low risk \nAre there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the question? Low concern\nDOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing\nWas there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard? Unclear \nDid all patients receive the same reference standard? Yes \nWere all patients included in the analysis? Yes \nCould the patient flow have introduced bias? Low risk "}

LitCovid-PD-MONDO

LitCovid-PD-CLO

LitCovid-PD-CHEBI

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-CHEBI","denotations":[{"id":"T35","span":{"begin":1640,"end":1642},"obj":"Chemical"},{"id":"T36","span":{"begin":1653,"end":1655},"obj":"Chemical"},{"id":"T37","span":{"begin":1811,"end":1813},"obj":"Chemical"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A35","pred":"chebi_id","subj":"T35","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CHEBI_29865"},{"id":"A36","pred":"chebi_id","subj":"T36","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CHEBI_29865"},{"id":"A37","pred":"chebi_id","subj":"T37","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CHEBI_73819"}],"text":"Study characteristics\nPatient Sampling Purpose: diagnosis COVID‐19 pneumonia ‐ to identify differences in CT imaging and clinical manifestations between pneumonia patients with and without COVID‐19, and to develop and validate a diagnostic model for COVID‐19 based on radiological semantic and clinical featuresDesign: cross‐sectional multicentre retrospective studyRecruitment:\u2028cases: consecutive patients with COVID‐19 admitted in 5 independent hospitals\u2028controls: at the same period, another 66 consecutive pneumonia patients without COVID‐19 from Meizhou People’s HospitalSample size: n = 136 (cases = 70)Inclusion criteria: patients admitted with COVID‐19 pneumonia (cases) and patients admitted with non‐COVID‐19 pneumonia (controls)Exclusion criteria: not specified for cases except those from 1 hospital (Meizhou), for cases and controls in Meizhou: after chest CT neoplasm, tuberculosis, pulmonary oedema, pulmonary contusion, aspiration pneumonia, bronchitis, any local or systemic treatment before CT scan, normal CT image without epidemiological history\nPatient characteristics and setting Facility cases: pneumonia patients with positive SARS‐CoV‐2 testFacility controls: CT pneumonia patients with consecutive negative RT‐PCRCountry: ChinaDates: 1 January 2020‐8 February 2020Symptoms and severity: pneumonia patients for cases and control; unclear severity of casesDemographics: M/F: cases 41/29, controls 43/23\u2028mean age: cases 42.9 range, 16‐69 years, controls 46.7 range, 0.3‐93 yearsExposure history: data about exposure to epidemic centres collected, but no results in the study nor in appendices\nIndex tests Systolic BP\nDiastolic BP\nRespiration rate\nHeart rate\nTemperature\nDry cough\nFatigue\nSore throat\nStuffy\nRunny nose\nTarget condition and reference standard(s) TC: COVID‐19 pneumonia\nRS: RT‐PCR and next generation sequencing for SARS‐Cov2\nFlow and timing Time interval not specified\nComparative \nNotes \nMethodological quality\nItem Authors' judgement Risk of bias Applicability concerns\nDOMAIN 1: Patient Selection\nWas a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? Yes \nWas a case‐control design avoided? Yes \nDid the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? Yes \nDid the study avoid inappropriate inclusions? No \nCould the selection of patients have introduced bias? High risk \nAre there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question? High\nDOMAIN 2: Index Test (All tests)\nWere the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? Unclear \nIf a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified? No \nCould the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias? Unclear risk \nAre there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question? Unclear\nDOMAIN 3: Reference Standard\nIs the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition? Yes \nWere the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests? Yes \nCould the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias? Low risk \nAre there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the question? Low concern\nDOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing\nWas there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard? Unclear \nDid all patients receive the same reference standard? Yes \nWere all patients included in the analysis? Yes \nCould the patient flow have introduced bias? Low risk "}

LitCovid-PD-HP

LitCovid-PD-GO-BP

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-GO-BP","denotations":[{"id":"T37","span":{"begin":1656,"end":1667},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/GO_0045333"},{"id":"T38","span":{"begin":1656,"end":1667},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/GO_0007585"}],"text":"Study characteristics\nPatient Sampling Purpose: diagnosis COVID‐19 pneumonia ‐ to identify differences in CT imaging and clinical manifestations between pneumonia patients with and without COVID‐19, and to develop and validate a diagnostic model for COVID‐19 based on radiological semantic and clinical featuresDesign: cross‐sectional multicentre retrospective studyRecruitment:\u2028cases: consecutive patients with COVID‐19 admitted in 5 independent hospitals\u2028controls: at the same period, another 66 consecutive pneumonia patients without COVID‐19 from Meizhou People’s HospitalSample size: n = 136 (cases = 70)Inclusion criteria: patients admitted with COVID‐19 pneumonia (cases) and patients admitted with non‐COVID‐19 pneumonia (controls)Exclusion criteria: not specified for cases except those from 1 hospital (Meizhou), for cases and controls in Meizhou: after chest CT neoplasm, tuberculosis, pulmonary oedema, pulmonary contusion, aspiration pneumonia, bronchitis, any local or systemic treatment before CT scan, normal CT image without epidemiological history\nPatient characteristics and setting Facility cases: pneumonia patients with positive SARS‐CoV‐2 testFacility controls: CT pneumonia patients with consecutive negative RT‐PCRCountry: ChinaDates: 1 January 2020‐8 February 2020Symptoms and severity: pneumonia patients for cases and control; unclear severity of casesDemographics: M/F: cases 41/29, controls 43/23\u2028mean age: cases 42.9 range, 16‐69 years, controls 46.7 range, 0.3‐93 yearsExposure history: data about exposure to epidemic centres collected, but no results in the study nor in appendices\nIndex tests Systolic BP\nDiastolic BP\nRespiration rate\nHeart rate\nTemperature\nDry cough\nFatigue\nSore throat\nStuffy\nRunny nose\nTarget condition and reference standard(s) TC: COVID‐19 pneumonia\nRS: RT‐PCR and next generation sequencing for SARS‐Cov2\nFlow and timing Time interval not specified\nComparative \nNotes \nMethodological quality\nItem Authors' judgement Risk of bias Applicability concerns\nDOMAIN 1: Patient Selection\nWas a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? Yes \nWas a case‐control design avoided? Yes \nDid the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? Yes \nDid the study avoid inappropriate inclusions? No \nCould the selection of patients have introduced bias? High risk \nAre there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question? High\nDOMAIN 2: Index Test (All tests)\nWere the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? Unclear \nIf a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified? No \nCould the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias? Unclear risk \nAre there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question? Unclear\nDOMAIN 3: Reference Standard\nIs the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition? Yes \nWere the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests? Yes \nCould the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias? Low risk \nAre there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the question? Low concern\nDOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing\nWas there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard? Unclear \nDid all patients receive the same reference standard? Yes \nWere all patients included in the analysis? Yes \nCould the patient flow have introduced bias? Low risk "}

LitCovid-sentences

LitCovid-PubTator

{"project":"LitCovid-PubTator","denotations":[{"id":"1615","span":{"begin":22,"end":29},"obj":"Species"},{"id":"1616","span":{"begin":164,"end":172},"obj":"Species"},{"id":"1637","span":{"begin":59,"end":77},"obj":"Disease"},{"id":"1638","span":{"begin":154,"end":163},"obj":"Disease"},{"id":"1639","span":{"begin":190,"end":198},"obj":"Disease"},{"id":"1640","span":{"begin":251,"end":259},"obj":"Disease"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A1615","pred":"tao:has_database_id","subj":"1615","obj":"Tax:9606"},{"id":"A1616","pred":"tao:has_database_id","subj":"1616","obj":"Tax:9606"},{"id":"A1637","pred":"tao:has_database_id","subj":"1637","obj":"MESH:C000657245"},{"id":"A1638","pred":"tao:has_database_id","subj":"1638","obj":"MESH:D011014"},{"id":"A1639","pred":"tao:has_database_id","subj":"1639","obj":"MESH:C000657245"},{"id":"A1640","pred":"tao:has_database_id","subj":"1640","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":"Study characteristics\nPatient Sampling Purpose: diagnosis COVID‐19 pneumonia ‐ to identify differences in CT imaging and clinical manifestations between pneumonia patients with and without COVID‐19, and to develop and validate a diagnostic model for COVID‐19 based on radiological semantic and clinical featuresDesign: cross‐sectional multicentre retrospective studyRecruitment:\u2028cases: consecutive patients with COVID‐19 admitted in 5 independent hospitals\u2028controls: at the same period, another 66 consecutive pneumonia patients without COVID‐19 from Meizhou People’s HospitalSample size: n = 136 (cases = 70)Inclusion criteria: patients admitted with COVID‐19 pneumonia (cases) and patients admitted with non‐COVID‐19 pneumonia (controls)Exclusion criteria: not specified for cases except those from 1 hospital (Meizhou), for cases and controls in Meizhou: after chest CT neoplasm, tuberculosis, pulmonary oedema, pulmonary contusion, aspiration pneumonia, bronchitis, any local or systemic treatment before CT scan, normal CT image without epidemiological history\nPatient characteristics and setting Facility cases: pneumonia patients with positive SARS‐CoV‐2 testFacility controls: CT pneumonia patients with consecutive negative RT‐PCRCountry: ChinaDates: 1 January 2020‐8 February 2020Symptoms and severity: pneumonia patients for cases and control; unclear severity of casesDemographics: M/F: cases 41/29, controls 43/23\u2028mean age: cases 42.9 range, 16‐69 years, controls 46.7 range, 0.3‐93 yearsExposure history: data about exposure to epidemic centres collected, but no results in the study nor in appendices\nIndex tests Systolic BP\nDiastolic BP\nRespiration rate\nHeart rate\nTemperature\nDry cough\nFatigue\nSore throat\nStuffy\nRunny nose\nTarget condition and reference standard(s) TC: COVID‐19 pneumonia\nRS: RT‐PCR and next generation sequencing for SARS‐Cov2\nFlow and timing Time interval not specified\nComparative \nNotes \nMethodological quality\nItem Authors' judgement Risk of bias Applicability concerns\nDOMAIN 1: Patient Selection\nWas a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? Yes \nWas a case‐control design avoided? Yes \nDid the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? Yes \nDid the study avoid inappropriate inclusions? No \nCould the selection of patients have introduced bias? High risk \nAre there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question? High\nDOMAIN 2: Index Test (All tests)\nWere the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? Unclear \nIf a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified? No \nCould the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias? Unclear risk \nAre there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question? Unclear\nDOMAIN 3: Reference Standard\nIs the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition? Yes \nWere the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests? Yes \nCould the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias? Low risk \nAre there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the question? Low concern\nDOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing\nWas there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard? Unclear \nDid all patients receive the same reference standard? Yes \nWere all patients included in the analysis? Yes \nCould the patient flow have introduced bias? Low risk "}

PMC:7386785 / 87025-90661 JSONTXT

Annnotations TAB JSON ListView MergeView

PMC:7386785 / 87025-90661 JSON TXT