PMC:7597510 / 4413-7487 JSON TXT

Annnotations TAB JSON ListView MergeView

LitCovid_Glycan-Motif-Structure

LitCovid-PD-FMA-UBERON

LitCovid-PD-UBERON

LitCovid-PD-MONDO

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-MONDO","denotations":[{"id":"T59","span":{"begin":94,"end":110},"obj":"Disease"},{"id":"T60","span":{"begin":112,"end":127},"obj":"Disease"},{"id":"T61","span":{"begin":454,"end":457},"obj":"Disease"},{"id":"T62","span":{"begin":608,"end":616},"obj":"Disease"},{"id":"T63","span":{"begin":971,"end":977},"obj":"Disease"},{"id":"T64","span":{"begin":1517,"end":1520},"obj":"Disease"},{"id":"T65","span":{"begin":2855,"end":2858},"obj":"Disease"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A59","pred":"mondo_id","subj":"T59","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MONDO_0005554"},{"id":"A60","pred":"mondo_id","subj":"T60","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MONDO_0003240"},{"id":"A61","pred":"mondo_id","subj":"T61","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MONDO_0009281"},{"id":"A62","pred":"mondo_id","subj":"T62","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MONDO_0005091"},{"id":"A63","pred":"mondo_id","subj":"T63","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MONDO_0004979"},{"id":"A64","pred":"mondo_id","subj":"T64","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MONDO_0043317"},{"id":"A65","pred":"mondo_id","subj":"T65","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MONDO_0043317"}],"text":"Investigations\nBlood tests revealed normal blood glucose levels and no findings suggestive of collagen disease, thyroid disease or vitamin abnormalities. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) assessment at admission at approximately 3 weeks after onset revealed normal protein levels and cell counts. All tests for antiganglioside antibodies were negative. The ganglioside antigens used in the ELISA were GM1, GM2, GD1a, GD1b, GD3, GalNAc-GD1a, GT1a, GT1b, GQ1b and GA1 (asialo-GM1). Ganglioside complexes containing two of the above 10 antigens were also used as described in a previous study.15 CSF was not tested for SARS-CoV-2 PCR. On admission, the patient’s first electrophysiological examination was normal. However, the second examination performed 1 week later revealed decreases in compound muscle action potential (CMAP) amplitudes in the median, radial and tibial nerves compared with those obtained in the first examination (table 1). Since the patient had a history of asthma, we did not perform lumbar MRI using a contrast agent.\nTable 1 Nerve conduction study\nMotor nerve conduction study\nNerve Distal latency (ms) Velocity (m/s) Amplitude (mV) F-wave minimal latency (ms)\nAt admission 1 week later 1 month later At admission 1 week later 1 month later At admission 1 week later 1 month later At admission 1 week later 1 month later\nMedian L\n Wrist–APB 3.4 (N\u003c4.0) 3.7 3.4 57.7(N\u003e50) 55.6 57.7 10.8 (N\u003e7) 7.8 10.9 24.0 (N\u003c29) 22 22.8\n Elbow–wrist 9.6 7.5 10.2\nUlnar L\n Wrist–ADM 2.6 (N\u003c3.4) 2.6 2.8 58.8 (N\u003e50) 56.4 60.8 10.0 (N\u003e7) 11.1 8.2 21.1 (N\u003c30) 24 23.2\n Elbow–wrist 9.4 10.7 7.7\nRadial L\n Wrist–EIP 2.6 (N\u003c2.9) 2.4 2.4 56.9 (N\u003e50) 55.6 61.4 7.2 (N\u003e7) 5.0 5.7\n Elbow–wrist 6.1 4.5 5.2\nTibial L\n Malleolus–FHB 3.6 (N\u003c6.0) 3.8 3.2 50.8 (N\u003e40) 46.5 46.9 22.6 (N\u003e5) 16.3 20.3 42.8 (N\u003c50) 46 44.1\n Knee–malleolus 18.6 13.9 15.7\nPeroneal L\n Ankle–EDB 3.9 (N\u003c5.5) 4.4 3.7 46.4 (N\u003e40) 45.4 47.2 6.6 (N\u003e5) 6.4 8.2\n Below fibula–ankle 6.2 5.7 7.0\nSensory nerve conduction study\nNerve Distal latency (ms) Velocity (m/s) Amplitude (mV)\nAt admission 1 week later 1 month later At admission 1 week later 1 month later At admission 1 week later 1 month later\nMedian L\n Wrist 3.1 (N\u003c4.0) 3 3 48.4 (N\u003e45) 49.0 48.7 24.1 (N\u003e10) 22.9 19.1\n Elbow–wrist 60.1 (N\u003e50) 56.1 61.1 12.1 12.5 10.8\nUlnar L\n Wrist 2.1 (N\u003c3.4) 2.2 2.2 53.7 (N\u003e45) 56.3 53.6 16.9 (N\u003e10) 17.2 18.9\n Elbow–wrist 66.3 (N\u003e50) 61.0 64.6 5.9 6.3 6.1\nRadial L\n Wrist 2.5 (N\u003c2.9) 1.8 2.1 58.5 (N\u003e50) 56.8 59.1 19.1 (N\u003e7) 21.3 18.2\n Elbow–wrist\nPeroneal L\n Malleolus 2.7 (N\u003c6.0) 2.7 3.4 51.9 (N\u003e40) 52.2 47.3 3.2 (N\u003e5) 7.3 3.2\nSural L\n Ankle 2.1 (N\u003c5.5) 2.8 2.2 46.7 (N\u003e40) 49.6 47.7 10.4 (N\u003e5) 11.9 13.7\nADM, abductor digiti minimi; APB, abductor pollicis brevis; Bold, at least 20% lower than the first value; EDB, extensor digitorum brevis; EIP, extensor indicis proprius; FHB, flexor hallucis brevis; L, left; N, normal."}

LitCovid-PD-CLO

LitCovid-PD-CHEBI

LitCovid-PubTator

LitCovid-PD-HP

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-HP","denotations":[{"id":"T14","span":{"begin":112,"end":127},"obj":"Phenotype"},{"id":"T15","span":{"begin":971,"end":977},"obj":"Phenotype"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A14","pred":"hp_id","subj":"T14","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/HP_0000820"},{"id":"A15","pred":"hp_id","subj":"T15","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/HP_0002099"}],"text":"Investigations\nBlood tests revealed normal blood glucose levels and no findings suggestive of collagen disease, thyroid disease or vitamin abnormalities. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) assessment at admission at approximately 3 weeks after onset revealed normal protein levels and cell counts. All tests for antiganglioside antibodies were negative. The ganglioside antigens used in the ELISA were GM1, GM2, GD1a, GD1b, GD3, GalNAc-GD1a, GT1a, GT1b, GQ1b and GA1 (asialo-GM1). Ganglioside complexes containing two of the above 10 antigens were also used as described in a previous study.15 CSF was not tested for SARS-CoV-2 PCR. On admission, the patient’s first electrophysiological examination was normal. However, the second examination performed 1 week later revealed decreases in compound muscle action potential (CMAP) amplitudes in the median, radial and tibial nerves compared with those obtained in the first examination (table 1). Since the patient had a history of asthma, we did not perform lumbar MRI using a contrast agent.\nTable 1 Nerve conduction study\nMotor nerve conduction study\nNerve Distal latency (ms) Velocity (m/s) Amplitude (mV) F-wave minimal latency (ms)\nAt admission 1 week later 1 month later At admission 1 week later 1 month later At admission 1 week later 1 month later At admission 1 week later 1 month later\nMedian L\n Wrist–APB 3.4 (N\u003c4.0) 3.7 3.4 57.7(N\u003e50) 55.6 57.7 10.8 (N\u003e7) 7.8 10.9 24.0 (N\u003c29) 22 22.8\n Elbow–wrist 9.6 7.5 10.2\nUlnar L\n Wrist–ADM 2.6 (N\u003c3.4) 2.6 2.8 58.8 (N\u003e50) 56.4 60.8 10.0 (N\u003e7) 11.1 8.2 21.1 (N\u003c30) 24 23.2\n Elbow–wrist 9.4 10.7 7.7\nRadial L\n Wrist–EIP 2.6 (N\u003c2.9) 2.4 2.4 56.9 (N\u003e50) 55.6 61.4 7.2 (N\u003e7) 5.0 5.7\n Elbow–wrist 6.1 4.5 5.2\nTibial L\n Malleolus–FHB 3.6 (N\u003c6.0) 3.8 3.2 50.8 (N\u003e40) 46.5 46.9 22.6 (N\u003e5) 16.3 20.3 42.8 (N\u003c50) 46 44.1\n Knee–malleolus 18.6 13.9 15.7\nPeroneal L\n Ankle–EDB 3.9 (N\u003c5.5) 4.4 3.7 46.4 (N\u003e40) 45.4 47.2 6.6 (N\u003e5) 6.4 8.2\n Below fibula–ankle 6.2 5.7 7.0\nSensory nerve conduction study\nNerve Distal latency (ms) Velocity (m/s) Amplitude (mV)\nAt admission 1 week later 1 month later At admission 1 week later 1 month later At admission 1 week later 1 month later\nMedian L\n Wrist 3.1 (N\u003c4.0) 3 3 48.4 (N\u003e45) 49.0 48.7 24.1 (N\u003e10) 22.9 19.1\n Elbow–wrist 60.1 (N\u003e50) 56.1 61.1 12.1 12.5 10.8\nUlnar L\n Wrist 2.1 (N\u003c3.4) 2.2 2.2 53.7 (N\u003e45) 56.3 53.6 16.9 (N\u003e10) 17.2 18.9\n Elbow–wrist 66.3 (N\u003e50) 61.0 64.6 5.9 6.3 6.1\nRadial L\n Wrist 2.5 (N\u003c2.9) 1.8 2.1 58.5 (N\u003e50) 56.8 59.1 19.1 (N\u003e7) 21.3 18.2\n Elbow–wrist\nPeroneal L\n Malleolus 2.7 (N\u003c6.0) 2.7 3.4 51.9 (N\u003e40) 52.2 47.3 3.2 (N\u003e5) 7.3 3.2\nSural L\n Ankle 2.1 (N\u003c5.5) 2.8 2.2 46.7 (N\u003e40) 49.6 47.7 10.4 (N\u003e5) 11.9 13.7\nADM, abductor digiti minimi; APB, abductor pollicis brevis; Bold, at least 20% lower than the first value; EDB, extensor digitorum brevis; EIP, extensor indicis proprius; FHB, flexor hallucis brevis; L, left; N, normal."}

LitCovid-PD-GO-BP

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-GO-BP","denotations":[{"id":"T3","span":{"begin":796,"end":812},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/GO_0001508"}],"text":"Investigations\nBlood tests revealed normal blood glucose levels and no findings suggestive of collagen disease, thyroid disease or vitamin abnormalities. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) assessment at admission at approximately 3 weeks after onset revealed normal protein levels and cell counts. All tests for antiganglioside antibodies were negative. The ganglioside antigens used in the ELISA were GM1, GM2, GD1a, GD1b, GD3, GalNAc-GD1a, GT1a, GT1b, GQ1b and GA1 (asialo-GM1). Ganglioside complexes containing two of the above 10 antigens were also used as described in a previous study.15 CSF was not tested for SARS-CoV-2 PCR. On admission, the patient’s first electrophysiological examination was normal. However, the second examination performed 1 week later revealed decreases in compound muscle action potential (CMAP) amplitudes in the median, radial and tibial nerves compared with those obtained in the first examination (table 1). Since the patient had a history of asthma, we did not perform lumbar MRI using a contrast agent.\nTable 1 Nerve conduction study\nMotor nerve conduction study\nNerve Distal latency (ms) Velocity (m/s) Amplitude (mV) F-wave minimal latency (ms)\nAt admission 1 week later 1 month later At admission 1 week later 1 month later At admission 1 week later 1 month later At admission 1 week later 1 month later\nMedian L\n Wrist–APB 3.4 (N\u003c4.0) 3.7 3.4 57.7(N\u003e50) 55.6 57.7 10.8 (N\u003e7) 7.8 10.9 24.0 (N\u003c29) 22 22.8\n Elbow–wrist 9.6 7.5 10.2\nUlnar L\n Wrist–ADM 2.6 (N\u003c3.4) 2.6 2.8 58.8 (N\u003e50) 56.4 60.8 10.0 (N\u003e7) 11.1 8.2 21.1 (N\u003c30) 24 23.2\n Elbow–wrist 9.4 10.7 7.7\nRadial L\n Wrist–EIP 2.6 (N\u003c2.9) 2.4 2.4 56.9 (N\u003e50) 55.6 61.4 7.2 (N\u003e7) 5.0 5.7\n Elbow–wrist 6.1 4.5 5.2\nTibial L\n Malleolus–FHB 3.6 (N\u003c6.0) 3.8 3.2 50.8 (N\u003e40) 46.5 46.9 22.6 (N\u003e5) 16.3 20.3 42.8 (N\u003c50) 46 44.1\n Knee–malleolus 18.6 13.9 15.7\nPeroneal L\n Ankle–EDB 3.9 (N\u003c5.5) 4.4 3.7 46.4 (N\u003e40) 45.4 47.2 6.6 (N\u003e5) 6.4 8.2\n Below fibula–ankle 6.2 5.7 7.0\nSensory nerve conduction study\nNerve Distal latency (ms) Velocity (m/s) Amplitude (mV)\nAt admission 1 week later 1 month later At admission 1 week later 1 month later At admission 1 week later 1 month later\nMedian L\n Wrist 3.1 (N\u003c4.0) 3 3 48.4 (N\u003e45) 49.0 48.7 24.1 (N\u003e10) 22.9 19.1\n Elbow–wrist 60.1 (N\u003e50) 56.1 61.1 12.1 12.5 10.8\nUlnar L\n Wrist 2.1 (N\u003c3.4) 2.2 2.2 53.7 (N\u003e45) 56.3 53.6 16.9 (N\u003e10) 17.2 18.9\n Elbow–wrist 66.3 (N\u003e50) 61.0 64.6 5.9 6.3 6.1\nRadial L\n Wrist 2.5 (N\u003c2.9) 1.8 2.1 58.5 (N\u003e50) 56.8 59.1 19.1 (N\u003e7) 21.3 18.2\n Elbow–wrist\nPeroneal L\n Malleolus 2.7 (N\u003c6.0) 2.7 3.4 51.9 (N\u003e40) 52.2 47.3 3.2 (N\u003e5) 7.3 3.2\nSural L\n Ankle 2.1 (N\u003c5.5) 2.8 2.2 46.7 (N\u003e40) 49.6 47.7 10.4 (N\u003e5) 11.9 13.7\nADM, abductor digiti minimi; APB, abductor pollicis brevis; Bold, at least 20% lower than the first value; EDB, extensor digitorum brevis; EIP, extensor indicis proprius; FHB, flexor hallucis brevis; L, left; N, normal."}

LitCovid-sentences

LitCovid-PD-GlycoEpitope

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-GlycoEpitope","denotations":[{"id":"T6","span":{"begin":393,"end":396},"obj":"GlycoEpitope"},{"id":"T7","span":{"begin":403,"end":407},"obj":"GlycoEpitope"},{"id":"T8","span":{"begin":409,"end":413},"obj":"GlycoEpitope"},{"id":"T9","span":{"begin":420,"end":431},"obj":"GlycoEpitope"},{"id":"T10","span":{"begin":427,"end":431},"obj":"GlycoEpitope"},{"id":"T11","span":{"begin":433,"end":437},"obj":"GlycoEpitope"},{"id":"T12","span":{"begin":439,"end":443},"obj":"GlycoEpitope"},{"id":"T13","span":{"begin":445,"end":449},"obj":"GlycoEpitope"},{"id":"T14","span":{"begin":466,"end":469},"obj":"GlycoEpitope"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A6","pred":"glyco_epitope_db_id","subj":"T6","obj":"http://www.glycoepitope.jp/epitopes/EP0050"},{"id":"A7","pred":"glyco_epitope_db_id","subj":"T7","obj":"http://www.glycoepitope.jp/epitopes/EP0056"},{"id":"A8","pred":"glyco_epitope_db_id","subj":"T8","obj":"http://www.glycoepitope.jp/epitopes/EP0059"},{"id":"A9","pred":"glyco_epitope_db_id","subj":"T9","obj":"http://www.glycoepitope.jp/epitopes/EP0058"},{"id":"A10","pred":"glyco_epitope_db_id","subj":"T10","obj":"http://www.glycoepitope.jp/epitopes/EP0056"},{"id":"A11","pred":"glyco_epitope_db_id","subj":"T11","obj":"http://www.glycoepitope.jp/epitopes/EP0066"},{"id":"A12","pred":"glyco_epitope_db_id","subj":"T12","obj":"http://www.glycoepitope.jp/epitopes/EP0067"},{"id":"A13","pred":"glyco_epitope_db_id","subj":"T13","obj":"http://www.glycoepitope.jp/epitopes/EP0069"},{"id":"A14","pred":"glyco_epitope_db_id","subj":"T14","obj":"http://www.glycoepitope.jp/epitopes/EP0050"}],"text":"Investigations\nBlood tests revealed normal blood glucose levels and no findings suggestive of collagen disease, thyroid disease or vitamin abnormalities. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) assessment at admission at approximately 3 weeks after onset revealed normal protein levels and cell counts. All tests for antiganglioside antibodies were negative. The ganglioside antigens used in the ELISA were GM1, GM2, GD1a, GD1b, GD3, GalNAc-GD1a, GT1a, GT1b, GQ1b and GA1 (asialo-GM1). Ganglioside complexes containing two of the above 10 antigens were also used as described in a previous study.15 CSF was not tested for SARS-CoV-2 PCR. On admission, the patient’s first electrophysiological examination was normal. However, the second examination performed 1 week later revealed decreases in compound muscle action potential (CMAP) amplitudes in the median, radial and tibial nerves compared with those obtained in the first examination (table 1). Since the patient had a history of asthma, we did not perform lumbar MRI using a contrast agent.\nTable 1 Nerve conduction study\nMotor nerve conduction study\nNerve Distal latency (ms) Velocity (m/s) Amplitude (mV) F-wave minimal latency (ms)\nAt admission 1 week later 1 month later At admission 1 week later 1 month later At admission 1 week later 1 month later At admission 1 week later 1 month later\nMedian L\n Wrist–APB 3.4 (N\u003c4.0) 3.7 3.4 57.7(N\u003e50) 55.6 57.7 10.8 (N\u003e7) 7.8 10.9 24.0 (N\u003c29) 22 22.8\n Elbow–wrist 9.6 7.5 10.2\nUlnar L\n Wrist–ADM 2.6 (N\u003c3.4) 2.6 2.8 58.8 (N\u003e50) 56.4 60.8 10.0 (N\u003e7) 11.1 8.2 21.1 (N\u003c30) 24 23.2\n Elbow–wrist 9.4 10.7 7.7\nRadial L\n Wrist–EIP 2.6 (N\u003c2.9) 2.4 2.4 56.9 (N\u003e50) 55.6 61.4 7.2 (N\u003e7) 5.0 5.7\n Elbow–wrist 6.1 4.5 5.2\nTibial L\n Malleolus–FHB 3.6 (N\u003c6.0) 3.8 3.2 50.8 (N\u003e40) 46.5 46.9 22.6 (N\u003e5) 16.3 20.3 42.8 (N\u003c50) 46 44.1\n Knee–malleolus 18.6 13.9 15.7\nPeroneal L\n Ankle–EDB 3.9 (N\u003c5.5) 4.4 3.7 46.4 (N\u003e40) 45.4 47.2 6.6 (N\u003e5) 6.4 8.2\n Below fibula–ankle 6.2 5.7 7.0\nSensory nerve conduction study\nNerve Distal latency (ms) Velocity (m/s) Amplitude (mV)\nAt admission 1 week later 1 month later At admission 1 week later 1 month later At admission 1 week later 1 month later\nMedian L\n Wrist 3.1 (N\u003c4.0) 3 3 48.4 (N\u003e45) 49.0 48.7 24.1 (N\u003e10) 22.9 19.1\n Elbow–wrist 60.1 (N\u003e50) 56.1 61.1 12.1 12.5 10.8\nUlnar L\n Wrist 2.1 (N\u003c3.4) 2.2 2.2 53.7 (N\u003e45) 56.3 53.6 16.9 (N\u003e10) 17.2 18.9\n Elbow–wrist 66.3 (N\u003e50) 61.0 64.6 5.9 6.3 6.1\nRadial L\n Wrist 2.5 (N\u003c2.9) 1.8 2.1 58.5 (N\u003e50) 56.8 59.1 19.1 (N\u003e7) 21.3 18.2\n Elbow–wrist\nPeroneal L\n Malleolus 2.7 (N\u003c6.0) 2.7 3.4 51.9 (N\u003e40) 52.2 47.3 3.2 (N\u003e5) 7.3 3.2\nSural L\n Ankle 2.1 (N\u003c5.5) 2.8 2.2 46.7 (N\u003e40) 49.6 47.7 10.4 (N\u003e5) 11.9 13.7\nADM, abductor digiti minimi; APB, abductor pollicis brevis; Bold, at least 20% lower than the first value; EDB, extensor digitorum brevis; EIP, extensor indicis proprius; FHB, flexor hallucis brevis; L, left; N, normal."}

PMC:7597510 / 4413-7487 JSONTXT

Annnotations TAB JSON ListView MergeView

PMC:7597510 / 4413-7487 JSON TXT