On 2021-09-25 10:12:08, user Jan Podhajsky wrote:

I forgot to add that researchers allowed persons below 15yo to enter the survey without parental/guardian consent. This is illegal in Czechia.

On 2021-09-27 01:49:48, user DRamsey wrote:

Why was this withdrawn instead of just updating with corrected numbers?

On 2021-11-04 18:32:24, user Libres Penseurs wrote:

By looking roughly at the numbers, the authors seemed to be right. Ottawa area population is around 1 million. If Ottawa is aligned with the rest of Canada, 78% of the population received at least 1 dose since the beginning of the vaccination campaign. On the two months stated in the study, the increase was about 10% (overall Canada data). This means that around 100 000 people were vaccinated in the Ottawa area during those two months. Ottawa have a lot of hospitals so you cannot assume that everybody with adverse reaction to the vaccine will show up at the same hospital. The authors use 1/3 of that total number (32k). The 800000 number refers only to people having received at least one dose since the beginning of the vaccination campaign. <br /> Myopericarditis cases at one hospital for a period of two month cannot be used as a numerator on this number to calculate risk.

On 2021-10-01 15:38:22, user friidrottare wrote:

https://www.bmj.com/content...

On 2021-10-03 07:16:11, user kdrl nakle wrote:

Sort of expected stuff, nothing surprising. Delta variant comes way ahead which is something we already know. So the real increase of airborne transmissions is a feature of Delta.

On 2021-10-03 07:33:26, user kdrl nakle wrote:

Ukraine's real disaster starts in 2021, in particular now with Delta variant since the country is in the bottom of European vaccination rates. 13% fully vaccinated versus 63% in EU. Absolutely catastrophic. Even worse than rather poorly vaccinated neighbors Slovakia, Romania, and Russia.

On 2021-10-04 13:50:29, user Steve Vlad wrote:

To the study authors:

As an epidemiologist, if I was reviewing this paper for publication I would send it back to you for major revisions or reject it outright. I would not even bother looking at the results.

The major issue is that you have conditioned study group entry by an event that happens at the end of the study. I.e. you have created a cohort of unvaccinated persons who must remain unvaccinated throughout the study. This is guaranteed to introduce selection bias, more specifically immortal-time bias. This further guarantees a biased estimate. This topic has been written about many times. Cf any of many articles by Sammie Souza at McGill.

Imagine someone in your unvaccinated cohort. Soon after the initial study date they develop an infection. 5 weeks later they have recovered and decided they should have had the vaccine, so they get one. Because you have insisted this group remain vaccine free you throw them out of the group and you lose their data. You have just thrown out an infection. Do this just a few times and it is guaranteed that your ‘vaccinated’ group is not reporting as many infections as it actually experienced. This easily accounts for the effect you report.

Note that this does NOT happen with the fully vaccinated/boosted group who must receive all vaccinations prior to study entry. You capture each and every infection with no drop out. Thus you’ve created a situation where you have non-random drop-out between the groups. That is selection bias.

To get around this problem you MUST use methods such as Cox proportional hazards modeling with time-varying exposure variables so that persons can move between cohorts based on exposure to the vaccine during the study period.

Hope this helps.

On 2021-10-08 13:13:27, user Richard S wrote:

Did the authors address multicollinearity of the highly correlated independent variables in their regression models?

On 2021-10-15 21:36:23, user Mary V wrote:

Please add results for the unvaccinated individuals who recovered from Covid prior to Feb 28, 2021. How does their risk of symptomatic infection during the delta uptick compare with the individuals who were fully vaccinated by Feb 28, 2021 and didn't have a positive Covid test before 6/1/21? Did one shot of the Pfizer vaccine improve the immunity of that group during the delta uptick? Other studies have shown a very strong immunity for those who have recovered from Covid symptoms. The data in this paper only supports a vaccine recommendation for people who've had asymptomatic cases of Covid. Hence the data for those who've had symptomatic cases needs to be added or your conclusion about the vaccine recommendation should be qualified.

On 2022-03-22 12:17:46, user panos101 wrote:

What's the status of this article. Has it been published?

On 2021-10-05 01:50:50, user C.K. Franz, M.D., Ph.D. wrote:

For final version of this preprint: DOI: 10.1002/acn3.51416. <br /> Alternatively, see: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih...

On 2021-10-06 23:34:39, user kdrl nakle wrote:

Excellent, this is what we are afraid of and this is why we need updated vaccines.

On 2021-10-08 13:47:58, user Mazda Sabouri wrote:

The IFR formula on page 9 appears to assume that the number of excess deaths and Covid deaths are equal. Certainly possible in certain regions, but also not a proper assumption to make universally.

Also there does come a point where IFR exceeds PFR in a given region. Especially for a highly contagious virus that aggressive targets large numbers of vulnerable people each and every year. This study admits that certain regions in Iran have had 200%+ attack rates already.

On 2021-10-08 20:58:14, user AbsurdIdea wrote:

Referring to "However, if prior infection does not afford protection against some of the newer variants of concern, there is little reason to suppose that the currently available vaccines would either.": The mRNA vaccines are targeted specifically to the "spike". There appears to be no information as to what the infection used or uses to identify the virus, and thus while new variants have a "spike" and likelihood of maintained resistance there is zero evidence of what natural immunity would or would not recognise in a variant. Thus the argument provided has no substance.

On 2021-10-09 20:30:31, user j` wrote:

Are you under the impression antibodies are the immune system's only means of protection?

Have you reviewed previous studies showing robust immunity of mild infections?

On 2021-10-10 04:14:01, user kdrl nakle wrote:

Nice. So you are 20 times more likely to have COVID induced myocarditis than vaccine induced one. And on the top of that the COVID induced one will last longer.

On 2021-10-10 04:55:53, user kdrl nakle wrote:

One of many recent papers indicating that Moderna is ahead of Pfizer.

On 2021-10-10 05:19:33, user kdrl nakle wrote:

I don't know about UK but in case of US this is useless since the mitigation measures are so heavily politicized in the US to the point of absurd actions. For example Alabama, does not even report outbreaks in schools any more and does not quarantine nor test exposed students.

On 2021-10-18 00:30:55, user Prescott Comptr wrote:

hasn't there been enough time for a peer review?

On 2021-10-18 22:45:59, user Sir Henry wrote:

Table S3 of the Supplementary Materials shows 262 "severe" adverse events for the vaccine, compared to 150 for the placebo. The difference of 112 is too large to be a statistical fluke (p < 0.001) and is a multiple of the number of "severe COVID-19" cases (30) for the placebo (Table S6). In terms of "severe" outcomes (COVID-19 or adverse events), the vaccine appears significantly more dangerous than the placebo over the four month observation period.

On 2021-10-19 17:10:24, user Jeremy Gustafson wrote:

It's too bad they didn't break out a 5th group of previously infected and not vaccinated to compare their immunity similar to the study that was done in Israel.

On 2021-10-22 07:52:48, user Adrien MP wrote:

Hi,<br /> Could you make Tables 1 and 2 available in order one can take the full extent of the work presented here?<br /> Thanks

On 2021-10-24 07:24:16, user Otmar S wrote:

Dysguesia is the leading indicator which can also be seen for children regarding other studies (for example CLOCK). I can´t find the question/incidence of Dysgeusia for children in this study. I wonder why. No data?

On 2021-10-31 17:00:24, user wincap wrote:

You should include affect of vaccines triggering paraneoplastic syndrome, which occurs in 20% of cancer patients.

On 2021-12-01 14:08:31, user watcher wrote:

The authors mention that vaccination efficacy might be affected by underreporting of mild symptomps. This raises another issue, which was not accounted for in the model. Asymptomatic infected individuals may still transmit the virus, but due to the lack of symptoms will not alter their behavior. It should be assumed that the more prominent symptoms are, the more individuals will reduce their contacts, to protect themselves and others. As unvaccinated infections generally result in more symptoms, these individuals will likely reduce their contacts naturally. Symptoms alter the behavior of individuals and thus transmissions, which is not accounted for in the model, but could change the outcome quite a bit.

On 2021-12-07 17:04:15, user LizzyJ wrote:

''Pandemic modeling'' is quickly becoming the astrology of mathematics & physics.

Want to get a lot of media attention and citations? Simply code up a little model and write up a paper about your unscientific predictions. As in all models, the chosen values for the parameters in this simulation are naive assumptions. There is no sufficiently high-quality or complete data on vaccine status and mode of infection (e.g. infected by a vaccinated or unvaccinated person) currently being reported by hospitals or health departments.

Pandemic modeling is an abstract and theoretical mathematical exercise with very high bias and uncertainty based on the underlying assumptions, factors included or excluded, incomplete input data, very poor data quality with big non-random gaps in the data, etc. It should not guide public policy. Only clinical studies and real-world medical data should guide policy.

On 2023-03-08 12:30:58, user Carlos Oliveira wrote:

This study has been published on Frontiers in Public Health: <br /> Routine saliva testing for SARS-CoV-2 in children: Methods for partnering with community childcare centers<br /> Frontiers in Public Health, 11, 1003158 - February 2023<br /> https://doi.org/10.3389/fpu...

On 2022-01-12 17:15:59, user Rick Sheridan wrote:

This was a laudable effort and I congratulate all of the authors and the study’s primary driver for pushing this through. Am in agreement that insight from results is likely limited by the maximum dosage as stipulated by the NNHPD guidelines. I enclose here daily quantitative PCR results from a high-quality PCR vendor during my own Jan '22 experience with high-dose hesperidin in context of a documented SC2 infection during the omicron wave.

https://emskephyto.medium.c...

As can be seen in the data log made available, subject (100 kg male) was taking multiple grams at a dose, often successively within hours of each other. Critically for DDI, no other pharmaceutical drugs were taken concurrently. For independent auditing purposes, will be happy to disclose the PCR vendor, the collector, and the hesperidin nutritional supplement brand to any relevant reachout.

With what little one has to go on from the posted results, I would offer a model that during an active infection, the minimum possible Ct value is correlated to the sustained serum hesperetin glucuronide level during the 0.5 - 2 days prior to the nasopharyngeal sampling from which Ct is determined.

Addressing the standing issue that viral load has often peaked prior to trial enrollment, this challenge remains tolerable in context of a clinical trial because one can still show an accelerated viral load reduction in the experimental group as compared with control, sufficient to demonstrate the mechanism.

Rick Sheridan<br /> EMSKE Phytochem<br /> 11-Jan 2022

On 2022-01-12 20:21:08, user Mike B wrote:

Do we know it's VOC? Dogs detect Parkinson's using same technique, perhaps from minor expression of misfolded protein. Discrimination and scent memory by dogs is much more complex than we know. <br /> Implies we could build a molecular filter to mimic dog's nose. That however, is elusive.<br /> Fantastic study. Much ??? to working dogs, especially Belgian Malinois!

On 2022-01-13 12:47:09, user kdrl nakle wrote:

On Christmass Eve Dec 24, 2021 there was 948 in ICUs in California. Yesterday CA DoH posted 1903 in ICUs. What happened? Most of that in Southern California, imagine. This flies in the face of this paper. This paper lacks multivariate analysis as most infected by Omicron were double vaccinated and most infected by Delta were unvaccinated. That way these people make sensational paper without serious research. <br /> We had 2730 deaths yesterday in the US (NYT), now the 7-day-avg is approaching the height of Delta wave, currently 1825. The peak of Delta wave was 2087 on Sep 20. I actually expect Omicron will crash this Delta record shorty as it will crash ICU overall record in no more than two days from today. Currently 24,711 in ICUs on January 11, 2022.<br /> This sad attempt to make Omicron look mild will actually cost many lives for all the people that took masks off and are believing this "mild Omicron" propaganda. Wait until you see.

On 2022-01-14 20:11:27, user Boback wrote:

Why are the event number exactly the same between vaccine arms in Table 1 in multiple places. Calculated point estimates and CI also the same for those. Did you have a coding error with events? I wouldn't expect so many exact event counts to overlap.

On 2022-01-16 16:21:39, user Titan28 wrote:

I don't see ivermectin on the list of suspect drugs. Was it not tested?

On 2022-01-18 13:58:07, user William Henry Talbot Walker wrote:

Were all of the vaccinated participants studied for pre-existing cellular response or globulin levels before the vaccines were administered?

On 2022-01-21 05:16:30, user Victor Schoenbach wrote:

I found this article both valuable and important, but I do not understand the last two sentences ("Despite the small numbers of individuals included in this study, the findings are uniquely valuable because of the early detection of Omicron infection in frequent workplace Covid-19 testing to prevent spread. In real-world antigen testing, the limit of detection was substantially lower than manufacturers have reported to the FDA based on laboratory validation.")

The first of these sentences is confusingly worded; copy editing would help.<br /> The second sentence refers to a lower limit of detection. Perhaps I do not understand the technical meaning of that term, but I would have thought that meant that the real-world sensitivity of the antigen test was higher (virus detected at a lower level), whereas the article suggests the opposite.

On 2022-01-21 14:18:29, user Rosanna wrote:

It will be interesting to know which organs are mostly affected by these autoantibodies. No mention about it is done in the manuscript. Do the authors have this information? Are lungs more affected in patients that suffered a critical COVID-19? <br /> Also, do the authors have data in male patients?

Rosanna Paciucci, Ph.D. Faculty Attending, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain

On 2022-01-21 21:47:18, user Brian Roberts wrote:

Thanks for this most up-to-date study. The only "sensitivity" number that matters to the clinician is how the BinaxNOW compared to the PCR for the entire group. That number was not provided. Or how they compare in symptomatic vs. asymptomatic groups, since that information is known to the clinician. How they compare in groups defined by the PCR Ct counts is all but useless, since it is unknown information at the bedside.

On 2022-01-22 13:19:19, user Torsten Selle wrote:

Is it possible to extend the measurement series to smaller aerosols (5-2µm). I am asking in regards to aerosols that cannot be stopped by ffp2 or n95 masks.

On 2022-01-24 01:15:03, user Fergal Daly wrote:

The paper uses linear regression on a non-linear variable (cases/100k). Does it apply directly to cases/100k or is it against log(cases) which should be somewhat linear?

On 2022-01-28 20:32:03, user Ranya Srour wrote:

The article is a good baseline for future studies involving suicidal ideation and bar graphs are very clear and easy to interpret. By extension, the study addresses the question: is it necessary to wait for sobriety before defining a patient as suicidal?

Maybe discuss this question directly in the discussion more; since it is the main question it may be valuable to expand on the in discussion.

On 2022-01-28 20:32:54, user Dhuha Al-Rasool wrote:

Very interesting article! It would be interesting to see the impact of THC on the SI results considering that it does not wear off as quickly as alcohol.

• D and T

On 2022-01-29 14:26:08, user Alberto wrote:

Thank you for this study. It's important to have this kind of study in a country like Greece where mortality has been very high in 2021 (compared to other European and worldwide countries and compared to itself in 2020) because we can appreciate the difference between the reality observed and the projected modeling based on the data that is available about vaccination status. The resulting model, which is incompatible with the reality observed worldwide, is a good measurement of the quality of the data available. I hope this can be looked at in more <br /> detail by more people thanks to this study.

On 2022-01-30 23:47:58, user HereHere wrote:

I'm a registered massage therapist in Ontario. We received no clear advice from our regulatory college about ventilation. I was waiting and waiting and waiting. They were very slow with recommending N95s and KN95s, and to my knowledge, still have not acknowledged that surface transmission is exceedingly rare. I don't know how they coordinate with Public Health Ontario, but you would think that, given we work in close contact with patients in typically small, poorly ventilated rooms, ventilation would have been given greater consideration.

On 2022-02-01 14:15:41, user Richard Reynolds wrote:

There is another reason, the most likely one, why immune cell aggregates were not found in the meninges in this study, which is due to the nature of the tissue used. This study used formalin fixed paraffin embedded tissues which are suboptimal for studying the delicate meningeal compartment. Cells are lost from the meninges at every stage of the embedding, cutting and section mounting stages, when compared to using snap frozen blocks. When you float FFPE sections on to a water bath before mounting them on slides you can actually see with the naked eye parts of the meninges floating away from the sections. Presumably this would also results in losing various components of the meninges, including immune cells. We dont find nearly as many immune cell aggregates in the meninges when we use FFPE sections and in order to see them in the FFPE sections we needed to change out protocols substantially to much milder procedures in order to better preserve the cellular components of the meninges.

On 2022-02-01 21:24:21, user Dylan wrote:

Would have been nice to see loss of taste and smell included given their pediatric prevalence per https://link.springer.com/a...

On 2021-10-18 16:39:30, user Kim Noble wrote:

Well-thought, provoking article. Congratulations to Dr. Gõni and her team.

On 2022-02-02 07:40:56, user Gerald Zavorsky, PhD, FACSM wrote:

I have no idea why studies like these are coming out all of a sudden. Politics should not be a part of science and I think these diversity studies and social injustice studies actually do a disservice to the minority groups in the U.S. There are several studies that show racial differences in lung function. I, for one, have published one of these studies (10.1186/s12890-021-01591-7) that demonstrate differences lung function after correcting for several factors. In order for these authors to truly test the hypothesis that reference equations should not be adjusted for race (i.e., no adjustment if you are African American, Hispanic, or Asians), then you would need to perform a Kappa Statistic and ROC analysis in both whites and the other ethnic groups. In addition, in each race/ethnic group, you would need a substantial proportion of individuals with CONFIRMED DISEASE. That is, confirmed disease via CT imaging or via strict criteria (i.e., GOLD criteria). Using a subjective assessment of breathlessness is not right, in my opinion. The authors have not used the objective criteria of FEV1/FVC ratio for definitive obstruction; they only used FEV1 and FVC separately, and according to ATS/ERS guidelines, it is strictly the FEV1/FVC ratio that confirms obstruction. Then, using the LLN criteria for FEV1/FVC, then one should assess the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, etc., comparing reference equations for different races in those with confirmed disease and those without the disease OR at least confirmed obstructive pattern (FEV1/FVC < LLN). That is, what is the sensitivity in detecting lung disease (or confirmed obstruction via the FEV1/FVC ratio) in blacks when using the GLI reference equation for blacks? What are the false negatives in blacks when using the black reference equation? THEN compare these results against the same group using the prediction equations for whites. This is really the only way. Subjective scores of breathlessness do not confirm the disease. All that their tables and figures show that if you use a white reference equation in blacks you can falsely over-diagnose lung disease in blacks. In this case, 870-890 blacks had falsely low FEV1 or FVC when using the white reference equation. The authors data actually go against their conclusions. First, 9% of whites were below the LLN for FEV1 when the white equation was used. Similarly, 9% of blacks were < LLN for FEV1 when the black equation was used. To me, this shows that the equations for blacks correctly identify low FEV1 values in blacks, and the reference equations in whites correctly identify low FEV1 in whites. The proportions are the same! As well, their Figure 1b, the mortality for Blacks that had an FEV1 that was normal when using black reference equation (orange line) was the SAME as when using the white reference equation for whites (blue line). This shows that the reference equations for whites used on whites are just as appropriate as the reference equation for blacks used on blacks. Indeed, if anything, Figure 1b demonstrates that using the white reference equation in blacks underscored mortality in blacks by 5% (i.e., 5% of the deaths are missed in blacks when using white reference equations). Thus, in conclusion, the authors have this all wrong and have misinterpreted the data. We should be correcting for race.

On 2021-10-18 18:05:16, user Francis Bascelli wrote:

How can I access this data on UK Biobank? The data/code section says the data can be accessed though UK Biobank, but I am having trouble finding it.

On 2022-02-02 11:42:04, user Philip Ashton wrote:

Hello,

Thanks for posting this really fascinating paper, so much food for thought!

We looked at this in our journal club today, and one practical issue that came up is that we would like to know over what period and what season sampling was done at each site and how this relates to typhoid season at each site. Because Typhi is often seasonal and this could influence the results.

Thanks again!

Phil

On 2022-02-03 03:23:31, user Chris wrote:

Do we know why the vaccines cause myocarditis yet?

On 2022-02-03 08:04:13, user dgatwood wrote:

Any chance a future update to this article could include the VE data against hospitalization *prior* to the third dose of mRNA-1273 (for comparison purposes)? Even a citation would help.

On 2022-02-03 21:59:47, user Suzy Huijghebaert wrote:

Line 148: "susceptibility of potential secondary cases was highest among the unvaccinated"<br /> Yet, some % in Table 1 striked me, and Table 9 does not really confirm that in the OR values. So I checked a few numbers, as when it comes to transmission of the omicron it is not so much sex or age that will matter, but - in real life - rather the total number of people you are in contact with, in view of the speed of transmission and the fact kids are affected by this mutants as well. Neither does it matter - economic-wise- whether the secondary case is vaccinated or not (yet, I agree an interesting aspect to study).So, how did you define the "potential cases"? The potential cases (per group of index cases) were apparently much lower in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated, and just proportionally correcting for that parameter, suggests that the rough highest attack rate -t as would be in real life - would have occurred with both BA1 and BA2 among the fully vaccinated (62-63%), provided they would have been in contact with as many potential cases in their households as the unvaccinated. Please clarify what induces the divergence/where the divergence with the outcomes arise from. Another question: what was the proportion of omicron cases among the people having already received vaccine, yet not considered fully vaccinated and now counted among the unvaccinated in your unvaccinated sample? Already thank you for clarifying.

On 2021-10-20 16:54:26, user helgarhein wrote:

You reported a surprising result: in the group of 51health care workers who were replete (above 75 nmol/l) only 2 took supplements. I would not have expected so many people (49) to have replete 25(OH)D levels in indoor workers in Birmingham (52ºN) in May, without supplements. However we had in the UK an unusually sunny and pleasant spring in 2020. I guess many people used their free time to go outdoors, because it was so sunny and dry, cinemas, restaurants etc were closed and socialising happened mostly outdoors. I presume that the unusual finding of so many people with excellent 25(OH)D levels could be explained by having acquired those levels in the week or two before May 2020. But maybe a longer timespan with good vitamin D supply is needed to make really all immune actions work optimally?? Could this have skewed the curve to make it look U-shaped?<br /> But, as pointed out by Dr. Gareth Davies, the most important observation was missing: the out comes of those infected, the ICU admissions and the mortality rate.<br /> Helga Rhein, ?retired GP, Edinburgh

On 2022-02-07 21:44:51, user Isaac Tian wrote:

Hello, we're the authors of citation #20. We had a few suggestions after reading your work.

1. A practical deployment of the network would ideally use some other silhouette imaging method such as a CT scan or an RGB photo like you suggested in the Study Limitations section. The sentences that referenced our work didn't mention our attempt to estimate total and regional body fat using a 2D RGB camera image.<br /> Our study data, composed of 2D coronal and sagittal images coupled with 2-fold DXA composition measurements, may be relevant to validating your method on non-MRI inputs. Additionally, I believe our parallel effort in estimating body composition from 2D silhouettes should be cited and compared against. We also did estimate compartmental body fat as arm, leg, and visceral fat. Our initial model was not very flexible in pose due to the smaller training set available at the time, but we have since corrected for this.

2. I recomputed our errors as MAEs to directly compare against your results, and assuming an adipose tissue density of 900 g / L, this came out to 121 g and 151 g for males and females, respectively. This is about 3-4x less than the magnitude of error reported in your draft. An analysis on the RMSE may be appropriate as large scale data may inflate R2.

A collaboration may be appropriate once this draft has passed peer review in which your network is used as the pre-trained initialization to fine-tune on silhouettes segmented from another imaging source, such as our Shape Up! dataset which was stratified by age and BMI. This also addresses the bias concern you mentioned as your MRI dataset has an average age of 65.

Thanks for sharing your work!

On 2022-02-15 09:24:31, user Shelly L Miller wrote:

This paper has been peer-reviewed and published here: https://www.nature.com/arti...

On 2022-02-25 06:26:07, user Abhishek Mallela wrote:

As of February 24, 2022, Figure 5 in the published version of this manuscript is missing axis labels. Please refer to the preprint version of Figure 4 for the axis labels.

On 2022-04-10 09:05:20, user dyctiostelium wrote:

The manuscript describes an analysis made from a database of suspected and confirmed COVID cases, with information about whether they had received any COVID vaccine at least 14 days prior and in the case they were, which one of 7 different vaccines.

It is stated that "vaccination status, date and specific vaccine<br /> product was collected from evaluated persons as part of epidemiological follow-up of suspected COVID-19 cases" and table S1 includes a row titled "Follow-up - person days", but the design does not seem to involve any clinical follow-up, given that the persons had either been vaccinated or not at the time their data was included in the database.

Could the authors clarify what is the source of the numbers in the row "follow-up" of figure S1?<br /> Of note, when the person-day is divided by the n of each column it gives a number of 114 days for the unvaccinated and around 200 days for the 7 different vaccines.

On 2022-04-15 17:26:22, user Young Juhn wrote:

A version of this article has been accepted for publication in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (JAMIA) published by Oxford University Press. A link will be forthcoming.

On 2021-11-06 19:24:57, user Eleutherodactylus Sciagraphus wrote:

: This preprint includes data from human subjects that are under ethical scrutiny. The<br /> majority of patients enrolled were not informed nor agreed on participating in the study. The Brazilian National Comission forResearch Ethics (CONEP) has been bypassed, documents have been tampered, and the situation is now under investigation.

References supporting this statement (both in English and in Portuguese):<br /> https://brazilian.report/li...<br /> https://www.emergency-live....<br /> https://www.dire.it/14-10-2...<br /> https://www.matinaljornalis...<br /> https://g1.globo.com/rs/rio...

On 2022-06-07 10:39:46, user M. M. Welling wrote:

For the 2 patients, both were vaccinated before the PET scans. The control patents were from 2019 thus uninfected and not vaccinated for COVID-19. Neuroinflammation can be initiated by the vaccination after liposomal transfer of the mRNA through the BBB. This needs to be discussed as well.issue

On 2022-07-11 07:19:17, user Thijs Blok wrote:

Question: <br /> - A PCR can stay positive for weeks after infection, is that taking in account?<br /> - Is a throat swap executed with the selftests ?

On 2021-11-23 20:58:11, user jackbutler5555 wrote:

Did the study include all samples from the formerly infected or just those hardy and viable enough for the study?

On 2023-06-29 09:40:33, user Nensi wrote:

The idea behind this study is truly interesting and highlights the critical importance of addressing the issues surrounding poor reporting and the quality of systematic reviews.<br /> However, some things could be changed to improve the quality of this study. Below you can find some of my comments regarding your manuscript.<br /> 1) The manuscript could use extensive language editing, as there are many grammatical and spelling errors. Many language editing programmes can be very useful for these purposes (Grammarly, Instatext etc.).<br /> 2) You begin the Methods section with the aim of your study, but you state that the aim was to do a study. You can see why that does not make sense. The aim of your study was to do a study. You should report here the specific purpose or what you wanted to assess (for example, the aim was to assess the reporting quality of systematic reviews published by authors from India from 2015 to 2020).<br /> 3) In Results, you decided to report the data in text and with two figures. However, when you have so much descriptive data, it could be presented more clearly with just a table. The table allows the authors to store large amounts of data in a small place, making it easier for the readers to go through the data and understand the results. <br /> 4) Another detail about presenting the results is that they should be written in the past tense instead of the present tense you used.<br /> 5) Also, when presenting descriptive data, it is recommended to report both absolute and relative numbers (for example, „Only 20 (15%) of the reviews have been registered in PROSPERO registry“).<br /> 6) You could benefit from using STROBE reporting guidelines for observational studies (https://www.equator-network... "https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/strobe/)"). Reporting guidelines are handy in ensuring you have reported everything that needs to be written in an article.<br /> 7) There is also much room for improvement regarding the referencing. A small detail would be the in-text referencing where you put [1] after the full stop. So the general rule would be that if you use brackets, it should be placed inside the sentence, and if you want to put the number in superscript, it should be after the sentence. That could use a bit of tidying up. <br /> 8) Additionally, regarding the referencing, you have used different styles of referencing in the reference list and some of the references are not referenced correctly or at all. There are many programmes that can help you organize and write the references (EndNote, Zotero, Mendeley etc.).<br /> 9) And one more thing for future referencing, even though a study is methodological, it should be preregistered. All studies should be preregistered to promote open science and transparency in conducting scientific research.<br /> I hope these suggestions will help. Good luck with your work!