Hyperglycemia at admission is a strong predictor of mortality and severe/critical complications in COVID-19 patients: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hyperglycemia at admission has been demonstrated to exacerbate the outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) but a meta-analysis is lacking to further confirm this hypothesis. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to summarize the evidence on the association between hyperglycemia at admission and the development of COVID-19. METHOD: Four databases namely, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library, were screened for eligible studies. STATA software was utilized to pool data for this meta-analysis. The primary outcomes included mortality and severity. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated with random-effects models, and the quality of evidence was appraised by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). This meta-analysis was prospectively registered online on PROSPERO, CRD42020191763. RESULTS: Sixteen observational studies with 6386 COVID-19 patients relating hyperglycemia at admission to COVID-19 outcomes were included. The overall data demonstrated that, compared with the control, the hyperglycemia at admission group was more likely to have increased mortality (OR = 3.45, 95% CI, 2.26-5.26) and severe/critical complications (OR = 2.08, 95% CI, 1.45-2.99) of COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Hyperglycemia at admission in COVID-19 patients may be a strong predictor of mortality and complications.
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 | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.053 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".