Changes in pulmonary function and patient-reported outcomes during COVID-19 recovery: a longitudinal, prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives The aim of this study was to compare respiratory and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between 3 and 6 months after symptom onset and to identify features that predict these changes. Methods This was a consecutive prospective cohort of 73 patients who were hospitalised with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We evaluated the changes in pulmonary function tests and PROMs between 3 and 6 months and then investigated the associations between outcomes (change in diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO), dyspnoea and quality of life (QoL)) and clinical and radiological features. Results There was improvement in forced vital capacity, total lung capacity andDLCObetween 3 and 6 months by 3.25%, 3.82% and 5.69%, respectively; however, there was no difference in PROMs. Reticulation and total computed tomography (CT) scores were associated with lowerDLCO% predicted at 6 months (coefficients; −8.7 and −5.3, respectively). The association between radiological scores andDLCOwere modified by time, with the degree of association between ground glass andDLCOhaving decreased markedly over time. There was no association between other predictors and change in dyspnoea or QoL over time. Conclusions There is improvement in pulmonary function measurements between 3 and 6 months after COVID-19 symptom onset; however, PROMs did not improve. A higher reticulation and total CT score are negatively associated withDLCO, but this association is attenuated over time. Lastly, there is a considerable proportion of patients with unexplained dyspnoea at 6 months, motivating further research to identify the underlying mechanisms.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".