Neurological diseases and COVID-19: prospective analyses using the UK Biobank
Bibliographic record
Abstract
COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease-19) may present with neurological signs, but whether people already affected by neurological conditions are at a higher risk of contracting COVID-19 is still not known. We, therefore, aimed to investigate the association of previously diagnosed neurological conditions with COVID-19. 502,536 community-dwelling UK Biobank participants (54.4% male, mean age 56.6 ± 10.3 years) were included. Among these, 57,463 participants had a diagnosis of neurological conditions (11.43%) and a total of 1326 COVID-19-positive cases were identified (0.26%). Neurological conditions were identified through medical history and linkage to data on hospital admissions (ICD-10 code G00-G99). COVID-19 presence was diagnosed using the data provided by Public Health England. The association of previous diagnosis of neurological conditions with COVID-19 was evaluated through logistic regressions, adjusted for potential confounders, reported as odds ratios (ORs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Nerve, nerve root and plexus disorders (G50-G59) were the most common conditions identified. The presence of COVID-19 was almost doubled in neurological conditions compared to the general population (0.45 vs. 0.24%, p < 0.0001). Previously diagnosed neurological conditions were associated with 60% higher odds of COVID-19 positive in the multivariable-adjusted model (OR = 1.6, 95% CI 1.4-1.8). Other degenerative diseases of the nervous system, extrapyramidal and movement disorders, polyneuropathies and other disorders of the peripheral nervous system, cerebral palsy and other paralytic syndromes were significantly associated with a higher odds of COVID-19. The presence of neurological conditions was associated with a significantly higher likelihood of COVID-19 compared to the general population.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".