MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3101022627 · doi:10.1101/2020.11.09.20228858

Can we predict the severe course of COVID-19 – a systematic review and meta-analysis of indicators of clinical outcome?

2020· review· en· W3101022627 on OpenAlexaff
Stephan Katzenschlager, A. Zimmer, Claudius Gottschalk, Juergen Grafeneder, Alexander Seitel, Lena Maier‐Hein, Andrea Benedetti, Jan Larmann, Markus A. Weigand, Sean McGrath, Claudia M. Denkinger

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersU.S. National Library of MedicineNational Institutes of HealthUniversitätsklinikum HeidelbergNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalOdds ratioMeta-analysisInternal medicinePublication biasCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background COVID-19 has been reported in over 40million people globally with variable clinical outcomes. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed demographic, laboratory and clinical indicators as predictors for severe courses of COVID-19. Methods We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, MedRvix and bioRvix) for publications from December 2019 to May 31 st 2020. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate pooled odds ratios and differences of medians between (1) patients admitted to ICU versus non-ICU patients and (2) patients who died versus those who survived. We adapted an existing Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool for outcome studies. Results Of 6,702 unique citations, we included 88 articles with 69,762 patients. There was concern for bias across all articles included. Age was strongly associated with mortality with a difference of medians (DoM) of 13.15 years (95% confidence interval (CI) 11.37 to 14.94) between those who died and those who survived. We found a clinically relevant difference between non-survivors and survivors for C-reactive protein (CRP; DoM 69.10, CI 50.43 to 87.77), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH; DoM 189.49, CI 155.00 to 223.98), cardiac troponin I (cTnI; DoM 21.88, CI 9.78 to 33.99) and D-Dimer (DoM 1.29mg/L, CI 0.9 - 1.69). Furthermore, cerebrovascular disease was the co-morbidity most strongly associated with mortality (Odds Ratio 3.45, CI 2.42 to 4.91) and ICU admission (Odds Ratio 5.88, CI 2.35 to 14.73). Discussion This comprehensive meta-analysis found age, cerebrovascular disease, CRP, LDH and cTnI to be the most important risk-factors in predicting severe COVID-19 outcomes and will inform decision analytical tools to support clinical decision-making. Summary In this systematic review we meta-analyzed 88 articles for risk factors of ICU admission and mortality in COVID-19. We found age, cerebrovascular disease, CRP, LDH and cTnI are the most important risk-factors for ICU admission or mortality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.073
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.073
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.039
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.327
GPT teacher head0.559
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207