Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Epidemic waves of COVID-19 strained hospital resources. We describe temporal trends in mortality risk and length of stay in intensive cares units (ICUs) among COVID-19 patients hospitalized through the first three epidemic waves in Canada. Methods We used population-based provincial hospitalization data from Ontario and Québec to examine mortality risk and lengths of ICU stay. For each province, adjusted estimates were obtained using marginal standardization of logistic regression models, adjusting for patient-level characteristics and hospital-level determinants. Results Using all hospitalizations from Ontario (N=26,541) and Québec (N=23,857), we found that unadjusted in-hospital mortality risks peaked at 31% in the first wave and was lowest at the end of the third wave at 6-7%. This general trend remained after controlling for confounders. The odds of in-hospital mortality in the highest hospital occupancy quintile was 1.2 (95%CI: 1.0-1.4; Ontario) and 1.6 (95%CI: 1.3-1.9; Québec) times that of the lowest quintile. Variants of concerns were associated with an increased in-hospital mortality. Length of ICU stay decreased over time from a mean of 16 days (SD=18) to 15 days (SD=15) in the third wave but were consistently higher in Ontario than Québec by 3-6 days. Conclusion In-hospital mortality risks and lengths of ICU stay declined over time in both provinces, despite changing patient demographics, suggesting that new therapeutics and treatment, as well as improved clinical protocols, could have contributed to this reduction. Continuous population-based monitoring of patient outcomes in an evolving epidemic is necessary for health system preparedness and response.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".