MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3189482288 · doi:10.3389/fmed.2021.714570

Risk Factors for Development and Severity of COVID-19 in COPD Patients

2021· article· en· W3189482288 on OpenAlexaff
Matteo Bonato, Umberto Semenzato, Mariaenrica Tinè, Erica Bazzan, Marco Damin, Davide Biondini, Alvise Casara, Micaela Romagnoli, Graziella Turato, Manuel G. Cosío, Marina Saetta, Simonetta Baraldo

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityChristie (Canada)
FundersUniversità degli Studi di Padova
KeywordsMedicineCOPDDLCOExacerbationDyslipidemiaInternal medicineIncidence (geometry)CohortDiabetes mellitusCohort studyRisk factorIntensive care medicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PneumoniaObesityLungLung functionDiffusing capacityDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impact that COVID-19 could have on patients with COPD is a real concern. In this study we evaluated, in a cohort of longitudinally followed COPD subjects, the incidence of COVID-19, seeking for possible risk factors and prognostic factors predicting the clinical outcome. In our cohort of 370 patients (followed for 5.3 ± 2.7 years), 22 developed COVID-19 (COPD/COVID-19+) between February/November 2020 (5.9%). Cardio-metabolic conditions (hypertension, dyslipidemia, obesity, diabetes) but not respiratory abnormalities (FEV 1 , DLCO, emphysema and exacerbation history), were risk factors for development of COVID-19 in COPD patients. Out of the 22 COPD/COVID-19+ patients, 10 needed intensive care. Low DLCO and emphysema, but also metabolic comorbidities, were related to the need for intensive care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in MedicineSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207