The association of estimated cardiorespiratory fitness with COVID-19 incidence and mortality: A cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) may be used to identify those at greatest risk for severe COVID-19 illness. However, no study to date has examined the association between CRF and COVID-19. The objectives of this study were to determine whether CRF is independently associated with testing positive with or dying from COVID-19. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study of 2,690 adults from the UK Biobank Study that were followed from March 16th, 2020 to July 26th, 2020. Participants who were tested for COVID-19 and had undergone CRF assessment were examined. CRF was estimated (eCRF) and categorized as low (<20th percentile), moderate (20th to 80th percentile) and high (≥80th percentile) within sex and ten-year age groups (e.g. 50-60 years). Participants were classified as having COVID-19 if they tested positive (primarily PCR tests) at an in-patient or out-patient setting as of July 26, 2020. Participants were classified as having died from COVID-19 if the primary or underlying cause of death was listed ICD-10 codes U071 or U072 by June 30th, 2020. Adjusted risk ratios (aRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated and a forward model building approach used to identify covariates. FINDINGS: There was no significant association between eCRF and testing positive for COVID-19. Conversely, individuals with moderate (aRR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.25, 0.75) and high fitness (aRR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.16, 0.85) had a significantly lower risk of dying from COVID-19 than those with low fitness. CONCLUSIONS: While eCRF was not significantly associated with testing positive for COVID-19, we observed a significant dose-response between having higher eCRF and a decreased risk of dying from COVID-19. This suggests that prior gains in CRF could be protective against dying from COVID-19 should someone develop the virus.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".