Health

Promising COVID-19 Research Highlighted and Warnings of Misleading Studies in New Peer Reviews

Promising COVID-19 Research Highlighted and Warnings of Misleading Studies in New Peer Reviews 

The preprints chosen for evaluation in Rapid Reviews: COVID-19 (RR:C19), an open-access overlay journal revealed by the MIT Press, cowl a variety of topics, with peer reviewers discovering a examine that increased ranges of cytokines IL-6 and IL-10 are related to elevated severity of COVID-19 is especially noteworthy and might be helpful in scientific care.

And in the primary revealed scholarly peer evaluations of pre-print analysis from Li-Meng Yan, Shu Kang, Jie Guan, and Shanchang Hu–the so-called “Yan Report”–that claims to indicate that uncommon options of the SARS-CoV-2 genome recommend refined laboratory modification slightly than pure evolution, reviewers Robert Gallo, Takahiko Koyama, Adam Lauring, and Marvin Reitz fee the examine as deceptive and write that the “manuscript doesn’t display ample scientific proof to assist its claims.”

Peer reviewers equally flag as deceptive new analysis that non-COVID-19 vaccinations are linked to decreased SARS-CoV-2 charges.

New peer evaluations from RR:C19, in order of the proof scale score (sturdy, dependable, probably informative, not informative, or deceptive) as supplied by every of the 2 reviewers:

“IL-6 and IL-10 as predictors of illness severity in COVID 19 sufferers: outcomes from meta-analysis and regression” by Sujan Okay Dhar, et al. Preprint | Reviews

Proof Scale Score: Sturdy / Dependable

Abstract: This preprint says that increased ranges of cytokines IL-6 and IL-10 are related to elevated severity of COVID-19. Reviewer consensus suggests this well-conducted examine supplies scientific proof of potential prognostic markers that might be helpful in scientific care. Reviewers: You-Wen He and Tsvetelina Velikova

“Faculty campuses and COVID-19 mitigation: scientific and financial worth” by Elena Losina, et al. Preprint | Reviews

Proof Scale Score: Sturdy / Probably Informative

Abstract: It is a complete mannequin that covers a well timed matter; nevertheless, the various estimations that went into the mannequin, in addition to the use of “contact-hours” as a key parameter, might make the conclusions topic to uncertainty. Reviewers: Kathy Leung and David Kim

“Lipid droplets fuels SARS-CoV-2 replication and inflammatory response” by Suelen da Silva Gomes Dias, et al. Preprint | Reviews

Proof Scale Score: Dependable / Probably Informative / Probably Informative

Abstract: This examine claims infection-mediated lipid droplet biogenesis contributes to SARS-CoV-2 replication whereas suppressing lipid droplet formation restricts an infection. Nonetheless, these will not be absolutely substantiated by the info provided as a consequence of lack of correct controls. Reviewers: Ulrich Desselberger, KJ Helbig, Ebony Alice Monson, and Prasert Auewarakul

“Serum Sphingosine-1-Phosphate as novel prognostic and predictive biomarker for COVID-19 severity and morbidity and its implications in scientific administration” by Giovanni Marfia, et al. Preprint | Reviews

Proof Scale Score: Probably Informative / Probably Informative / Not Informative

Abstract: This probably informative article with some methodological flaws means that serum Sphingosine-1-Phosphate (S1P) is related to COVID-19 severity. Additional analysis is required to grasp if serum S1P might be supplied therapeutically to scale back COVID-19 severity. Reviewers: Yoh Takuwa, Hideru Obinata, and Markus Gräler

“Exploratory evaluation of immunization information highlights decreased SARS-CoV-2 charges in people with latest non-COVID-19 vaccinations” by Colin Pawlowski, et al. Preprint | Reviews

Proof Scale Score: Probably Informative / Misleading

Abstract: Whereas the findings from this examine are intriguing, the potential for spurious affiliation between vaccination and an infection is substantial. There are limitations to the info and findings might be deceptive. Reviewers: Andrew Wiese and Shaun Truelove

“Uncommon options of the SARS-CoV-2 genome suggesting refined laboratory modification slightly than pure evolution and delineation of its possible artificial route” by Li-Meng Yan, et al. Reviews

Proof Scale Score: Misleading / Misleading / Misleading

Abstract: This manuscript doesn’t display ample scientific proof to assist its claims. Claims are at occasions baseless and will not be supported by the info and strategies used. Choice-makers ought to take into account the writer’s claims in this examine deceptive. Reviewers: Takahiko Koyama, Adam Lauring, Robert Gallo, and Marvin Reitz

PopCash.net
Back to top button