MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 13656: Outcomes of Pre-existing Cardiovascular Disease Amongst COVID-19 Patients

2020· article· en· W3106233886 on OpenAlexaff
C Shah, Harmandeep Singh, Mehwish Martin, Salma Yousuf, Payu Raval, Nirmaljot Kaur, Chika Nwodika, Angelina Yogarajah, Rashmi Subhedar, Jigisha Rakholiya, Urvish Patel

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEpidemiologyInternal medicineObservational studyOdds ratioCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DiseaseMeta-analysisMortality rateMechanical ventilationInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: COVID-19 has multiorgan involvement and it is believed that outcomes are poor amongst patients with hypertension (HTN) and pre-existing cardiovascular disorders (CVD). Hypothesis: The objective of this meta-analysis is to evaluate outcomes [mortality and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) utilization] of COVID-19 in patients with pre-existing HTN and CVD. Methods: English full-text-observational studies having data on epidemiological characteristics of patients with COVID-19 were identified searching PubMed using MeSH-terms from December 1, 2019, to April 30, 2020. Studies having CVD or HTN as one of the pre-existing comorbidities and described outcomes including IMV and mortality were selected with a consensus of three reviewers. 29 studies met these criteria. Following MOOSE protocol, data on patients’ characteristics especially age and history of CVD, HTN, IMV, and mortality were pooled using a random-effects model. The pooled prevalence of CVD and HTN were calculated. Meta-regression was performed and correlation coefficient (r) and odds ratio (OR) were estimated to evaluate the effects of pre-existing CVD and HTN on outcomes of COVID-19 patients. Results: Out of 29 studies with COVID-19 epidemiology data, 21, 17, 18 and 19 studies have details on mortality, IMV, HTN, and pre-existing CVD, respectively. Pooled prevalence of HTN was 28.2% [95%CI:22.1%-35.1%; p<0.001; 4858/11626 patients; Heterogeneity (I 2 ):97.8%] and pre-existing CVD was 12.2% [8.9%-16.6%; p<0.001; 2044/11664 patients; I 2 :96.8%]. In age-adjusted meta-regression analysis, IMV was significantly higher among COVID-19 patients with pre-existing CVD [r:0.28; OR:1.3 (1.1-1.6); I 2 :89.7%; p=0.0028] without significant association with HTN [r:0.01; OR:1.0 (0.9-1.1); I 2 :95.9%; p=0.8161]. HTN [r:0.001; OR:1.0 (0.9-1.1); I 2 :96%; p=0.9685] and pre-existing CVD [r:-0.01; OR:0.9 (0.9-1.1); I 2 :96.3%; p=0.8772] had no significant association with mortality amongst COVID-19 patients. Conclusion: In the age-adjusted analysis, though we identified pre-existing CVD as a risk factor for higher utilization of IMV, pre-existing CVD and HTN had no independent role in increasing 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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.018
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.258 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors→French-language works237,207→