Changes in pulmonary function and patient-reported outcomes during COVID-19 recovery: a longitudinal, prospective cohort study
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.
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 ( D LCO ), dyspnoea and quality of life (QoL)) and clinical and radiological features. Results There was improvement in forced vital capacity, total lung capacity and D LCO between 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 lower D LCO % predicted at 6 months (coefficients; −8.7 and −5.3, respectively). The association between radiological scores and D LCO were modified by time, with the degree of association between ground glass and D LCO having 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 with D LCO , 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it