The preprints selected for review in Rapid Reviews: COVID-19 (RR:C19), an open-access overlay journal published by the MIT Press, cover a wide range of subjects, with peer reviewers finding a study that higher levels of cytokines IL-6 and IL-10 are associated with increased severity of COVID-19 is particularly noteworthy and could be useful in clinical care.
And in the first published scholarly peer reviews of pre-print research from Li-Meng Yan, Shu Kang, Jie Guan, and Shanchang Hu–the so-called “Yan Report”–that claims to show that unusual features of the SARS-CoV-2 genome suggest sophisticated laboratory modification rather than natural evolution, reviewers Robert Gallo, Takahiko Koyama, Adam Lauring, and Marvin Reitz rate the study as misleading and write that the “manuscript does not demonstrate sufficient scientific evidence to support its claims.”
Peer reviewers similarly flag as misleading new research that non-COVID-19 vaccinations are linked to decreased SARS-CoV-2 rates.
New peer reviews from RR:C19, in order of the evidence scale rating (strong, reliable, potentially informative, not informative, or misleading) as provided by each of the two reviewers:
“IL-6 and IL-10 as predictors of disease severity in COVID 19 patients: results from meta-analysis and regression” by Sujan K Dhar, et al. Preprint | Reviews
Evidence Scale Rating: Strong / Reliable
Summary: This preprint says that higher levels of cytokines IL-6 and IL-10 are associated with increased severity of COVID-19. Reviewer consensus suggests this well-conducted study provides scientific evidence of potential prognostic markers that could be useful in clinical care. Reviewers: You-Wen He and Tsvetelina Velikova
“College campuses and COVID-19 mitigation: clinical and economic value” by Elena Losina, et al. Preprint | Reviews
Evidence Scale Rating: Strong / Potentially Informative
Summary: This is a comprehensive model that covers a timely topic; however, the many estimations that went into the model, as well as the use of “contact-hours” as a key parameter, may make the conclusions subject 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
Evidence Scale Rating: Reliable / Potentially Informative / Potentially Informative
Summary: This study claims infection-mediated lipid droplet biogenesis contributes to SARS-CoV-2 replication while suppressing lipid droplet formation restricts infection. However, these are not fully substantiated by the data offered due to lack of proper 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 clinical management” by Giovanni Marfia, et al. Preprint | Reviews
Evidence Scale Rating: Potentially Informative / Potentially Informative / Not Informative
Summary: This potentially informative article with some methodological flaws suggests that serum Sphingosine-1-Phosphate (S1P) is associated with COVID-19 severity. Further research is needed to understand if serum S1P could be provided therapeutically to reduce COVID-19 severity. Reviewers: Yoh Takuwa, Hideru Obinata, and Markus Gräler
“Exploratory analysis of immunization records highlights decreased SARS-CoV-2 rates in individuals with recent non-COVID-19 vaccinations” by Colin Pawlowski, et al. Preprint | Reviews
Evidence Scale Rating: Potentially Informative / Misleading
Summary: While the findings from this study are intriguing, the potential for spurious association between vaccination and infection is substantial. There are limitations to the data and findings could be misleading. Reviewers: Andrew Wiese and Shaun Truelove
“Unusual features of the SARS-CoV-2 genome suggesting sophisticated laboratory modification rather than natural evolution and delineation of its probable synthetic route” by Li-Meng Yan, et al. Reviews
Evidence Scale Rating: Misleading / Misleading / Misleading
Summary: This manuscript does not demonstrate sufficient scientific evidence to support its claims. Claims are at times baseless and are not supported by the data and methods used. Decision-makers should consider the author’s claims in this study misleading. Reviewers: Takahiko Koyama, Adam Lauring, Robert Gallo, and Marvin Reitz
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.