Stimuli-responsive nanoparticles, nanogels and capsules for integrated multifunctional intelligent systems (Review, 2010)

Leave a comment

In this review we provide an analysis of recent literature reports on the synthesis and applications of stimuli-responsive polymeric and hybrid nanostructured particles in a range of sizes from nanometers to a few micrometers: nano- and microgels, core–shell structures, polymerosomes, block-copolymer micelles, and more complex architectures. The review consists of two major parts: synthesis and applications of nanoparticles in colloidal dispersions, thin films, delivery devices and sensors. We also broadly discuss potential directions for further developments of this research area.

Motornov, M., Roiter, Y., Tokarev, I., & Minko, S.. (2010). Stimuli-responsive nanoparticles, nanogels and capsules for integrated multifunctional intelligent systems. Progress in Polymer Science, 35(1–2), 174–211.

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2009.10.004
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Buwalda, S. J., Boere, K. W. M., Dijkstra, P. J., Feijen, J., Vermonden, T., & Hennink, W. E.. (2014). Hydrogels in a historical perspective: From simple networks to smart materials. Journal of Controlled Release, 190, 254–273.

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2014.03.052
DOI URL
directSciHub download

See also:
Fluorescent probe-encapsulated smart nanohydrogel to enhance sensitivity toward hydrogen peroxide in living cells (Publication Date, Feb. 2023)
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0143720822008609

  • Advances in the development of cyclodextrin-based nanogels/microgels for biomedical applications: Drug delivery and beyond 2022, Carbohydrate Polymers
  • Formation of ultrathin scarf-like micelles, ultrathin disk-like micelles and spherical micelles by self-assembly of polyurethane diblock copolymers 2022, Journal of Molecular Liquids
  • Inorganic/organic hybrid nanoparticles synthesized in a two-step radiation-driven process 2022, Radiation Physics and Chemistry
  • The influence of the functional end groups on the properties of polylactide-based materials 2022, Progress in Polymer Science
  • How molecular interactions tune the characteristic time of nanocomposite colloidal sensors 2022, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science

Psychoneuroimmunology

Psychoneuroimmunology (PNI), also referred to as psychoendoneuroimmunology (PENI) or psychoneuroendocrinoimmunology (PNEI), is the study of the interaction between psychological processes and the nervous and immune systems of the human body. It is a subfield of psychosomatic medicine. PNI takes an interdisciplinary approach, incorporating psychology, neuroscience, immunology, physiology, genetics, pharmacology, molecular biology, psychiatry, behavioral medicine, infectious diseases, endocrinology, and rheumatology.

The main interests of PNI are the interactions between the nervous and immune systems and the relationships between mental processes and health. PNI studies, among other things, the physiological functioning of the neuroimmune system in health and disease; disorders of the neuroimmune system (autoimmune diseases; hypersensitivities; immune deficiency); and the physical, chemical and physiological characteristics of the components of the neuroimmune system in vitro, in situ, and in vivo.

It is now clear that the cellular and molecular processes that make up our ‘immune system’ are also crucial to normal brain development and play a role in the pathoaetiology of many mental and physical disorders.


Troyer, E. A., Kohn, J. N., & Hong, S.. (2020). Are we facing a crashing wave of neuropsychiatric sequelae of COVID-19? Neuropsychiatric symptoms and potential immunologic mechanisms. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 87, 34–39.

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.04.027
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Hamilton-West, K.. (2011). Psychobiological Processes in Health and Illness. Psychobiological Processes in Health and Illness. 1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road, London EC1Y 1SP United Kingdom: SAGE Publications Ltd

Plain numerical DOI: 10.4135/9781446251324
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Mravec, B., Tibensky, M., & Horvathova, L.. (2020). Stress and cancer. Part II: Therapeutic implications for oncology. Journal of Neuroimmunology, 346, 577312.

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.jneuroim.2020.577312
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Pahlevi, R., Putra, S. T., & Sriyono, S.. (2017). Psychoneuroimmunology Approach to Improve Recovery Motivation, Decrease Cortisol and Blood Glucose of DM Type 2 Patients with Dhikr Therapy. Jurnal Ners, 12(1), 60–65.

Plain numerical DOI: 10.20473/jn.v12i1.2315
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Mathews, H. L., & Janusek, L. W.. (2011). Epigenetics and psychoneuroimmunology: Mechanisms and models. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 25(1), 25–39.

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.bbi.2010.08.009
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Labanski, A., Langhorst, J., Engler, H., & Elsenbruch, S.. (2020). Stress and the brain-gut axis in functional and chronic-inflammatory gastrointestinal diseases: A transdisciplinary challenge. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 111, 104501.

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2019.104501
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Leckman, J. F.. (2014). Commentary: What does immunology have to do with brain development and psychopathology? – A commentary on O’Connor et al. (2014). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1111/jcpp.12259
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Segerstrom, S. C., Glover, D. A., Craske, M. G., & Fahey, J. L.. (1999). Worry Affects the Immune Response to Phobic Fear. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 13(2), 80–92.

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1006/brbi.1998.0544
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Aziez Chettoum, Kamilia Guedri, Zouhir Djerrou, Rachid Mosbah, Latifa Khattabi, Abir Boumaaza, & Wissam Benferdi. (2020). Distribution of leukocyte subpopulation among students threatened by failure. International Journal of Research in Pharmaceutical Sciences, 11(3), 3807–3812.

Plain numerical DOI: 10.26452/ijrps.v11i3.2553
DOI URL
directSciHub download

The germ theory of disease: Experiments to determine mode of spread of influenza (Dr. Milton J. Rosenau, 1919)

Leave a comment
ROSENAU, M. J.. (1919). EXPERIMENTS TO DETERMINE MODE OF SPREAD OF INFLUENZA. Journal of the American Medical Association, 73(5), 311.

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1001/jama.1919.02610310005002
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Fulltext: sci-hub.ru/10.1001/jama.1919.02610310005002

Abstract:
The experiments here described were performed on an island in Boston Harbor, on volunteers obtained from the Navy. The work was conducted by a group of officers detailed for that purpose, from the U. S. Navy and the U. S. Public Health Service, consisting of Dr. G. W. McCoy, director of the Hygienic Library, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, Dr. Leake, and Dr. Lake, all on the part of the U. S. Public Health Service; and cooperating with those medical officers, was a group also detailed for this purpose on the part of the U. S. Navy, consisting of Dr. J. J. Keegan, Dr. De Wayne Richey and myself.

The work itself was conducted at Gallops Island, which is the quarantine station of the Port of Boston, and peculiarly well fitted for operations of this kind, serving adequately for the purposes of isolation, observations, and maintenance of the large group of volunteers
—
Excerpt:
“The volunteers were all of the most susceptible age, mostly between 18 and 25, only a few of them around 30 years old ; and all were in good physical condition. None of these volunteers, 100 all told in number, had “influenza ;” that is, from the most care¬ ful histories that we could elicit, they gave no account of a febrile attack of any kind during the winter, except a few who were purposely selected, as having shown a typical attack of influenza, in order to test questions of immunity, and for the purpose of control. Now, we proceeded rather cautiously at first by administering a pure culture of bacillus of influenza, Pfeiffer’s bacillus, in a rather moderate amount, into the nostrils of a few of these volunteers. These early experiments I will not stop to relate, but I will go at once to what I may call our Experiment 1.”

***

As the preliminary trials proved negative, we became bolder, and selecting nineteen of our volunteers, gave each one of them a very large quantity of a mixture of thirteen different strains of the Pfeiffer bacillus, some of them obtained recently from the lungs at necropsy; others were subcultures of varying age, and each of the thirteen had, of course, a different history. Suspensions of these organisms were sprayed with an atomi¬ zer into the nose and into the eyes, and back into the throat, while the volunteers were breathing in. We used some billions of these organisms, according to our estimated counts, on each one of the volunteers, but none of them took sick. Then we proceeded to transfer the virus obtained from cases of the disease ; that is, we collected the material and mucous secretions of the mouth and nose and throat and bronchi from cases of the disease and transferred this to our volunteers. We always obtained this material in the same way : The patient with fever, in bed, has a large, shallow, traylike arrangement before him or her, and we washed out one nostril with some sterile salt solution, using perhaps 5 ce., which is allowed to run into this tray ; and that nostril is blown vigorously into the tray. This is repeated with the other nostril. The patient then gargles with some of the solution. Next we obtain some bronchial mucus through coughing, and then we swab the mucous surface of each nares and also the mucous membrane of the throat. We place these swabs with the material in a bottle with glass beads, and add all the material obtained in the tray. This is the stuff we transfer to our volunteers. In this par¬ ticular experiment, in which we used ten volunteers, each of them received a comparatively small quantity of this, about 1 c.c. sprayed into each nostril and into the throat, while inspiring, and on the eye. None of these took sick. Some of the same material was fil¬ tered and instilled into other volunteers but produced no results.

***

Our next experiment consisted in injections of blood. We took five donors, five cases of influenza in the febrile stage, some of them again quite early in the disease. We drew 20 ‘c.c. from the arm vein of each, making a total of 100 c.c, which was mixed and treated with 1 per cent, of sodium citrate. Ten c.c. of the citrated whole blood were injected into each of the ten volunteers. None of them took sick in any way. Then we collected a lot of mucous material from the upper respiratory tract, and filtered ‘ it through Man- dler filters. While these filters will hold back the bacteria of ordinary size, they will allow “ultramicro- scopic” organisms to pass. This filtrate was injected into ten volunteers, each one receiving 3.5 c.c. sub- cutaneously, and none of these took sick in any way.

***

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_J._Rosenau

Eyler, J. M.. (2010). The state of science, microbiology, and vaccines circa 1918. Public Health Reports

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1177/00333549101250s306
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Excerpt:

“Perhaps the most interesting epidemiological studies conducted during the 1918–1919 pandemic were the human experiments conducted by the Public Health Service and the U.S. Navy under the supervision of Milton Rosenau on Gallops Island, the quarantine station in Boston Harbor, and on Angel Island, its counterpart in San Francisco. The experiment began with 100 volunteers from the Navy who had no history of influenza. Rosenau was the first to report on the experiments conducted at Gallops Island in November and December 1918.69 His first volunteers received first one strain and then several strains of Pfeiffer’s bacillus by spray and swab into their noses and throats and then into their eyes. When that procedure failed to produce disease, others were inoculated with mixtures of other organisms isolated from the throats and noses of influenza patients. Next, some volunteers received injections of blood from influenza patients. Finally, 13 of the volunteers were taken into an influenza ward and exposed to 10 influenza patients each. Each volunteer was to shake hands with each patient, to talk with him at close range, and to permit him to cough directly into his face. None of the volunteers in these experiments developed influenza. Rosenau was clearly puzzled, and he cautioned against drawing conclusions from negative results. He ended his article in JAMA with a telling acknowledgement: “We entered the outbreak with a notion that we knew the cause of the disease, and were quite sure we knew how it was transmitted from person to person. Perhaps, if we have learned anything, it is that we are not quite sure what we know about the disease.”69 (p. 313)

The research conducted at Angel Island and that continued in early 1919 in Boston broadened this research by inoculating with the Mathers streptococcus and by including a search for filter-passing agents, but it produced similar negative results.70–72 It seemed that what was acknowledged to be one of the most contagious of communicable diseases could not be transferred under experimental conditions.”
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2862332/

Murderous medicine: Nazi doctors, human experimentation, and Typhus

Leave a comment

Jews were labeled disease carriers and a public health risk to justify the creation of ghettos.

Berkman, N. D.. (2006). Murderous Medicine: Nazi Doctors, Human Experimentation, and Typhus. Annals of Internal Medicine, 144(12), 944.

Plain numerical DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-144-12-200606200-00020
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Inattentional blindness: The 5G rollout and its ramifications

Leave a comment

This post is under construction…

 

Daniel J simon, C. F. C. (1999). Gorilla in our midst – reference. Gorillas in Our Midst: Sustained, Inattentional Blindness for Dynamic Events – Perception.
Simons, D. J. (2010).
Monkeying around with the Gorillas in Our Midst: Familiarity with an Inattentional-Blindness Task Does Not Improve the Detection of Unexpected Events. I-Perception, 1(1), 3–6. doi.org/10.1068/i03865

5G map: www.nperf.com/de/map/5g
5G has been developed by the US/Israeli military as a weapon to disperse crowds (directed energy beams which are harmful to biological organisms). It has been used twice during the illegal Irak-war. There are virtually no studies about the safety of 5G and it can be regarded as a social experiment without consensus and control-group. The 60Ghz frequency interferes with oxygen absorption of hemoglobin.

Tretyakov, M. Y., Koshelev, M. A., Dorovskikh, V. V., Makarov, D. S., & Rosenkranz, P. W. (2005). 60-GHz oxygen band: precise broadening and central frequencies of fine-structure lines, absolute absorption profile at atmospheric pressure, and revision of mixing coefficients. Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy, 231(1), 1–14. doi.org/10.1016/j.jms.2004.11.011


Physical Control of the Mind: Toward a Psycho-civilized Society by José M. R. Delgado. Publication date 1969

archive.org/details/PhysicalControlOfTheMindJosM.R.Delgado1969

Electronic technology has reached a high level of sophistication,
and two-way radio commJ’nication with automobiles, airplanes,
and outer space vehicles is commonplace today. The
notable lag in development of similar instrumentation for communciation with the depth of the brain reflects the already
mentioned unbalanced evolution of our technological civilization,
which seems more interested in accumulating power than
in understanding and influencing the basic mechanisms of the
human mind.
This gap is now being filled, and as Figures 4 and 5 show, it
is already possible to equip animals or human beings with
minute instruments called “stimoceivers” for radio transmission
and reception of electrical messages to and from the brain in
completely unrestrained subjects. Microminiaturization of the
instrument’s electronic components permits control of all parameters of excitation for radio stimulation of three different points
within the brain and also telemetric recording of three channels
of intracerebral electrical activity. In animals, the stimoceiver
may be anchored to the skull, and different members of a colony
can be studied without disturbing their spontaneous relations
within a group. Behavior such as aggression can be evoked or
inhibited. In patients, the stimoceiver may be strapped to the
head bandage, permitting electrical stimulation and monitoring
of intracerebral activity without disturbing spontaneous activities.

Prof. Rainer Mausfeld: Fear and Power – The war against “X”

Leave a comment

“Under the pretext of a governmental war against “X”, democratic structures can be dismantled and authoritarian structures established.”

BibTeX
@book{book:{2453221},
title = {Angst und Macht – Herrschaftstechniken der Angsterzeugung in kapitalistischen Demokratien},
author = {Rainer Mausfeld},
publisher = {Westend-Verlag},
isbn = {ISBN-10: 3864892813 ISBN-13: 978-3864892813},
year = {2019},
series = {},
edition = {},
volume = {},
url = {http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=7ce671ee666b2b46a99adf2dd3287922}}

Download mirrors:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

p. 39
“Demselben Zweck einer Verdeckung eigener Ziele und Absichten dient eine Angsterzeugung durch propagandistische Deklaration einer großen Gefahr X, der die Bevölkerung durch einen »Kampf gegen X« entschlossen entgegentreten müsse. Eine derartige propagandistische Warnung begleiten die staat­lichen Apparate durch »die gegenwärtig alles beherrschende Verheißung des Schutzes vor Terrorismus und Bösem aller Art«.38 X kann dabei so ziemlich alles sein, was sich irgendwie wirksam zur Angsterzeugung nutzen lässt. X kann also für »Kommunismus« stehen, für Migranten, »Sozialschmarotzer«, Terrorismus, Fake News und Desinformation, Rechtspopu­lismus, Islamismus oder für irgendetwas anderes. Durch die propagandistische Ausrufung eines »Kampfes gegen X« lassen sich in »kapitalistischen Demokratien« gleichzeitig mehrere von den Zentren der Macht gewünschte Ziele erreichen: Zum einen wird der für Machtzwecke nutzbare Rohstoff »Angst« produziert, zudem lässt sich die Aufmerksamkeit sehr wirksam auf Ablenkziele richten, und schließlich lassen sich unter dem Vorwand eines Kampfes gegen X demokratische Strukturen abbauen und auf allen Ebenen der Exekutive und Legislative autoritäre Strukturen etablieren.”

Further References

PCR-test cannot be used to diagnose Covid (or any other viral) infections

Leave a comment

Keywords: [PCR factcheck, PCR Faktencheck, Signal detection theory, False positive rate, Statistical Power, Sample Size, PCR Test reliability, PCR Test Validity, PCR primers, PCR repetitive cycles, PCR ROC curve, Receiver-Operator characteristic (ROC), Kary Mullis on (mis)use of PCR Test.]

Click to enlarge

Noble laureate and PCR test inventor Kary Mullis (expressis verbis; see below for original video material):
“With PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody. It makes you believe in the Buddhist notion that everything is contained in everything else”.
The invaldity of the PCR method is especially significant when 45 repetition cycles are used, as stated in the original publication by Drosten et al. The generally excepted upper limit is at most 25 repetition cycles – everything above is completly unreliable as the proportion of false positives rises exponentially (see recommendations for PCR Cycling Parameters).
Quote: “Thermal cycling was performed at 55 °C for 10 min for reverse transcription, followed by 95 °C for 3 min and then 45 cycles of 95 °C for 15 s, 58 °C for 30 s.”
Corman, V. M., Landt, O., Kaiser, M., Molenkamp, R., Meijer, A., Chu, D. K., Bleicker, T., Brünink, S., Schneider, J., Schmidt, M. L., Mulders, D. G., Haagmans, B. L., van der Veer, B., van den Brink, S., Wijsman, L., Goderski, G., Romette, J. L., Ellis, J., Zambon, M., Peiris, M., … Drosten, C. (2020). Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin, 25(3), 2000045. doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045

Mainstream scientific outlets deny the fact; c.f.: in.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-pcr/fact-check-inventor-of-method-used-to-test-for-covid-19-didnt-say-it-cant-be-used-in-virus-detection-idUSKBN24420X

The PCR test is the crucial ‘domino stone’ on which all other fallacious conclusions rest (it forms the major premise of the quasi-syllogistic argument which is constantly presented to justify the neoliberal Corona measures which aggressively antagonise the middle-class). Given that all “Corona Lockdown Measures” are based on inferential PCR testing, this specific test thus lies at the very core of the invalid statistical conclusions which are currently propagated by the mass-media (i.e., systematic fearmongering to inhibit higher-order psychological processes; cf. dual-process theories of thinking and reasoning).

Expand Synopsis
  • The German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee (Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss), launched July 10, 2020, was founded by four trial attorneys to investigate and prosecute those responsible for implementing the economically devastating lockdowns around the world, as well as using fraudulent testing to engineer the appearance of a dangerous pandemic
  • The Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee will be working with an international network of lawyers to argue the most massive tort case ever — a case described as “probably the greatest crime against humanity ever committed”
  • They argue that pandemic measures were intended to sow panic so that the pharmaceutical and tech industries can generate huge profits from the sale of PCR tests, antigen and antibody tests and vaccines, and the harvesting of our genetic fingerprints
  • Lockdowns were unnecessary, and any claim to the contrary is wrong, the Inquiry Committee insists. The virus was already in retreat and infection rates were starting to decline when lockdowns were imposed; scientific evidence shows a majority of people already have built-in protection against the virus due to cross-reactive T cell immunity, and the PCR test cannot be used to identify an active infection with SARS-CoV-2 or any other virus
  • While mortality statistics during the pandemic have been within the norms of any given year, meaning the pandemic has not resulted in an excess number of deaths or a death toll higher than normal, the collateral damage from pandemic response measures is nearly incalculable.

Source URL: articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/10/17/coronavirus-fraud-biggest-crime-against-humanity.aspx?cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1HL&cid=20201017Z2&mid=DM679594&rid=989151909

First of all, the PCR method has never been approved for diagnostic purposes. Its inventor, Kary Mullis, has repeatedly emphasised that this test should not be used as a diagnostic tool. This crucial fact is simply denied in public discourse. Listen to Kary Mullis for yourself – don’t fall victim to the hype…Deutsche Version unten

 

“[PCR tests] are simply incapable of diagnosing any disease … A positive PCR test result does not mean that an infection is present. If someone tests positive, it does not mean that they’re infected with anything, let alone with the contagious SARS-CoV-2 virus. Even the United States CDC … agrees with this and I quote directly from page 38 of one of its publications on the coronavirus and the PCR tests dated July 13 2020.

The PCR swabs take one or two sequences of a molecule that are invisible to the human eye and therefore need to be amplified in many cycles to make it visible. Everything over 35 cycles is … considered completely unreliable and scientifically unjustifiable.

However, the Drosten test as well as the WHO recommended tests … are set to 45 cycles. Can that be because of the desire to produce as many positive results as possible and thereby provide the basis for the false assumption that a large number of infections have been detected?”

“Even Drosten himself declared in an interview with a German business magazine in 2014 … that these PCR tests are so highly sensitive that even very healthy and non-infectious people may test positive,” Fuellmich notes.

Dr. Yeadon, in agreement with the professors of immunology, Camera from Germany, Capel from the Netherlands and Cahill from Ireland as well as a microbiologist, Dr. Harvey from Austria, all of whom testified before the German corona committee, explicitly points out that a positive test does not mean that an intact virus has been found.”

As explained by Fuellmich, crimes against humanity, first defined during the Nuremberg trials following World War II, are today regulated in Section 7 of the International Criminal Code. The three questions the committee seeks to answer through judicial means are:

1. Is there a COVID-19 pandemic or is there only a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test pandemic?

Specifically, does a positive PCR test result mean that the individual is infected with SARS-CoV-2 and has COVID-19, or does it mean absolutely nothing in connection with the COVID-19 infection?

2. Do pandemic response measures such as lockdowns, mask mandates, social distancing and quarantine regulations serve to protect the world’s population from COVID-19, or do these measures serve only to make people panic?

Are these measures intended to sow “panic in order to make people believe, without asking any questions, that their lives are in danger, so that the pharmaceutical and tech industries can generate huge profits from the sale of PCR tests, antigen and antibody tests and vaccines, as well as the harvesting of our genetic fingerprints?”

3. Is it true that the German government was massively lobbied — more so than any other country — by the chief protagonists of this COVID-19 pandemic?

According to Fuellmich, Germany “is known as a particularly disciplined country and was therefore to become a role model for the rest of the world for its strict and, of course, successful adherence” to pandemic measures.

Answers to these questions are urgently needed, he says, because SARS-CoV-2, which is touted as one of the most serious threats to life in modern history, “has not caused any excess mortality anywhere in the world.”

Ai, T., Yang, Z., Hou, H., Zhan, C., Chen, C., Lv, W., Tao, Q., Sun, Z., & Xia, L. (2020). Correlation of Chest CT and RT-PCR Testing for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China: A Report of 1014 Cases. Radiology. doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020200642

Xie, X., Zhong, Z., Zhao, W., Zheng, C., Wang, F., & Liu, J. (2020). Chest CT for Typical Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pneumonia: Relationship to Negative RT-PCR Testing. Radiology. doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020200343

Fang, Y., Zhang, H., Xie, J., Lin, M., Ying, L., Pang, P., & Ji, W. (2020). Sensitivity of chest CT for COVID-19: Comparison to RT-PCR. In Radiology. doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020200432

Wu, P., Duan, F., Luo, C., Liu, Q., Qu, X., Liang, L., & Wu, K. (2020). Characteristics of Ocular Findings of Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Hubei Province, China. JAMA Ophthalmology. doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2020.1291

Lan, L., Xu, D., Ye, G., Xia, C., Wang, S., Li, Y., & Xu, H. (2020). Positive RT-PCR Test Results in Patients Recovered from COVID-19. In JAMA – Journal of the American Medical Association. doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.2783

Ai, T., Yang, Z., & Xia, L. (2020). Correlation of Chest CT and RT-PCR Testing in Coronavirus Disease. Radiology.

Chan, J. F. W., Yip, C. C. Y., To, K. K. W., Tang, T. H. C., Wong, S. C. Y., Leung, K. H., Fung, A. Y. F., Ng, A. C. K., Zou, Z., Tsoi, H. W., Choi, G. K. Y., Tam, A. R., Cheng, V. C. C., Chan, K. H., Tsan, O. T. Y., & Yuen, K. Y. (2020). Improved molecular diagnosis of COVID-19 by the novel, highly sensitive and specific COVID-19-RdRp/Hel real-time reverse transcription-PCR assay validated in vitro and with clinical specimens. In Journal of Clinical Microbiology. doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00310-20

Wang, S., Guo, L., Chen, L., Liu, W., Cao, Y., Zhang, J., & Feng, L. (2020). A case report of neonatal COVID-19 infection in China. Clin Infect Dis. doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa225

Huang, X., Wei, F., Hu, L., Wen, L., & Chen, K. (2020). Epidemiology and clinical characteristics of COVID-19. In Archives of Iranian Medicine. doi.org/10.34172/aim.2020.09

Long, C., Xu, H., Shen, Q., Zhang, X., Fan, B., Wang, C., Zeng, B., Li, Z., Li, X., & Li, H. (2020). Diagnosis of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): rRT-PCR or CT? European Journal of Radiology. doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.108961

Mardani, R., Ahmadi Vasmehjani, A., Zali, F., Gholami, A., Mousavi Nasab, S. D., Kaghazian, H., Kaviani, M., & Ahmadi, N. (2020). Laboratory Parameters in Detection of COVID-19 Patients with Positive RT-PCR; a Diagnostic Accuracy Study. Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine. doi.org/10.22037/aaem.v8i1.632

He, J. L., Luo, L., Luo, Z. D., Lyu, J. X., Ng, M. Y., Shen, X. P., & Wen, Z. (2020). Diagnostic performance between CT and initial real-time RT-PCR for clinically suspected 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients outside Wuhan, China. Respiratory Medicine. doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2020.105980

Zhao, D., Yao, F., Wang, L., Zheng, L., Gao, Y., Ye, J., Guo, F., Zhao, H., & Gao, R. (2020). A comparative study on the clinical features of coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia with other pneumonias. Clinical Infectious Diseases. doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa247

Lv, D. feng, Ying, Q. ming, Weng, Y. song, Shen, C. bin, Chu, J. guo, Kong, J. ping, Sun, D. he, Gao, X., Weng, X. bei, & Chen, X. qin. (2020). Dynamic change process of target genes by RT-PCR testing of SARS-Cov-2 during the course of a Coronavirus Disease 2019 patient. Clinica Chimica Acta. doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2020.03.032

Mei, X., Lee, H. C., Diao, K. yue, Huang, M., Lin, B., Liu, C., Xie, Z., Ma, Y., Robson, P. M., Chung, M., Bernheim, A., Mani, V., Calcagno, C., Li, K., Li, S., Shan, H., Lv, J., Zhao, T., Xia, J., … Yang, Y. (2020). Artificial intelligence–enabled rapid diagnosis of patients with COVID-19. Nature Medicine. doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0931-3

Feng, H., Liu, Y., Lv, M., & Zhong, J. (2020). A case report of COVID-19 with false negative RT-PCR test: necessity of chest CT. Japanese Journal of Radiology. doi.org/10.1007/s11604-020-00967-9

Wong, H. Y. F., Lam, H. Y. S., Fong, A. H. T., Leung, S. T., Chin, T. W. Y., Lo, C. S. Y., Lui, M. M. S., Lee, J. C. Y., Chiu, K. W. H., Chung, T. W. H., Lee, E. Y. P., Wan, E. Y. F., Hung, I. F. N., Lam, T. P. W., Kuo, M. D., & Ng, M. Y. (2020). Frequency and Distribution of Chest Radiographic Findings in Patients Positive for COVID-19. Radiology. doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020201160

Cheng, Z., Lu, Y., Cao, Q., Qin, L., Pan, Z., Yan, F., & Yang, W. (2020). Clinical features and chest CT manifestations of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a single-center study in Shanghai, China. American Journal of Roentgenology. doi.org/10.2214/AJR.20.22959

Lim, J., Jeon, S., Shin, H. Y., Kim, M. J., Seong, Y. M., Lee, W. J., Choe, K. W., Kang, Y. M., Lee, B., & Park, S. J. (2020). Case of the index patient who caused tertiary transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 in Korea: The application of lopinavir/ritonavir for the treatment of COVID-19 pneumonia monitored by quantitative RT-PCR. Journal of Korean Medical Science. doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e79

Bai, H. X., Hsieh, B., Xiong, Z., Halsey, K., Choi, J. W., Tran, T. M. L., Pan, I., Shi, L. B., Wang, D. C., Mei, J., Jiang, X. L., Zeng, Q. H., Egglin, T. K., Hu, P. F., Agarwal, S., Xie, F. F., Li, S., Healey, T., Atalay, M. K., & Liao, W. H. (2020). Performance of Radiologists in Differentiating COVID-19 from Non-COVID-19 Viral Pneumonia at Chest CT. Radiology. doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020200823

Tian, Y., Rong, L., Nian, W., & He, Y. (2020). Review article: gastrointestinal features in COVID-19 and the possibility of faecal transmission. In Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics. doi.org/10.1111/apt.15731

Liu, W., Wang, J., Li, W., Zhou, Z., Liu, S., & Rong, Z. (2020). Clinical characteristics of 19 neonates born to mothers with COVID-19. Frontiers of Medicine. doi.org/10.1007/s11684-020-0772-y

Bwire, G. M., & Paulo, L. S. (2020). Coronavirus disease-2019: Is fever an adequate screening for the returning travelers? Tropical Medicine and Health. doi.org/10.1186/s41182-020-00201-2

Alzamora, M. C., Paredes, T., Caceres, D., Webb, C. M., Webb, C. M., Valdez, L. M., Valdez, L. M., La Rosa, M., & La Rosa, M. (2020). Severe COVID-19 during Pregnancy and Possible Vertical Transmission. American Journal of Perinatology. doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1710050

Ye, Z., Zhang, Y., Wang, Y., Huang, Z., & Song, B. (2020). Chest CT manifestations of new coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a pictorial review. European Radiology. doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06801-0

Expand References
Close Synopsis