Predictors of mortality among <scp>long‐term</scp> care residents with <scp>SARS‐CoV</scp> ‐2 infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While individuals living in long-term care (LTC) homes have experienced adverse outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection, few studies have examined a broad range of predictors of 30-day mortality in this population. METHODS: We studied residents living in LTC homes in Ontario, Canada, who underwent PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection from January 1 to August 31, 2020, and examined predictors of all-cause death within 30 days after a positive test for SARS-CoV-2. We examined a broad range of risk factor categories including demographics, comorbidities, functional status, laboratory tests, and characteristics of the LTC facility and surrounding community were examined. In total, 304 potential predictors were evaluated for their association with mortality using machine learning (Random Forest). RESULTS: A total of 64,733 residents of LTC, median age 86 (78, 91) years (31.8% men), underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing, of whom 5029 (7.8%) tested positive. Thirty-day mortality rates were 28.7% (1442 deaths) after a positive test. Of 59,702 residents who tested negative, 2652 (4.4%) died within 30 days of testing. Predictors of mortality after SARS-CoV-2 infection included age, functional status (e.g., activity of daily living score and pressure ulcer risk), male sex, undernutrition, dehydration risk, prior hospital contacts for respiratory illness, and duration of comorbidities (e.g., heart failure, COPD). Lower GFR, hemoglobin concentration, lymphocyte count, and serum albumin were associated with higher mortality. After combining all covariates to generate a risk index, mortality rate in the highest risk quartile was 48.3% compared with 7% in the first quartile (odds ratio 12.42, 95%CI: 6.67, 22.80, p < 0.001). Deaths continued to increase rapidly for 15 days after the positive test. CONCLUSIONS: LTC residents, particularly those with reduced functional status, comorbidities, and abnormalities on routine laboratory tests, are at high risk for mortality after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Recognizing high-risk residents in LTC may enhance institution of appropriate preventative measures.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".