MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3186832153 · doi:10.2196/29638

Early Experience With Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibody Therapy for COVID-19: Retrospective Cohort Survival Analysis and Descriptive Study

2021· article· en· W3186832153 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIRx Med · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRetrospective cohort studyHazard ratioProportional hazards modelInternal medicineCohortSurvival analysisEmergency medicineConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Neutralizing monoclonal antibody (MAB) therapies may benefit patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at high risk for progressing to severe COVID-19 or hospitalization. Studies documenting approaches to deliver MAB infusions and demonstrating their efficacy are lacking. Objective We describe our experience and the outcomes of almost 3000 patients who received MAB infusion therapy at Northwell Health, a large integrated health care system in New York. Methods This is a descriptive study of adult patients who received MAB therapy between November 20, 2020, to January 31, 2021, and a retrospective cohort survival analysis comparing patients who received MAB therapy prior to admission versus those who did not. A multivariable Cox model with inverse probability weighting according to the propensity score including covariates (sociodemographic, comorbidities, and presenting vital signs) was used. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality; additional evaluations included emergency department use and hospitalization within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test for patients who received MAB therapy. Results During the study period, 2818 adult patients received MAB infusion. Following therapy and within 28 days of a COVID-19 test, 123 (4.4%) patients presented to the emergency department and were released, and 145 (5.1%) patients were hospitalized. These 145 patients were compared with 200 controls who were eligible for but did not receive MAB therapy and were hospitalized. In the MAB group, 16 (11%) patients met the primary outcome of in-hospital mortality, versus 21 (10.5%) in the control group. In an unadjusted Cox model, the hazard ratio (HR) for time to in-hospital mortality for the MAB group was 1.38 (95% CI 0.696-2.719). Models adjusting for demographics (HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.53-2.23), demographics and Charlson Comorbidity Index (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.573-2.59), and with inverse probability weighting according to propensity scores (HR 1.19, 95% CI 0.619-2.29) did not demonstrate significance. The hospitalization rate was 4.4% for patients who received MAB therapy within 0 to 4 days, 5% within 5 to 7 days, and 6.1% in ≥8 days of symptom onset (P=.15). Conclusions Establishing the capability to provide neutralizing MAB infusion therapy requires substantial planning and coordination. Although this therapy may be an important treatment option for early mild to moderate COVID-19 in patients who are at high risk, further investigations are needed to define the optimal timing of MAB treatment to reduce hospitalization and 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.756

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.344 · 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