MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3205783229 · doi:10.30574/wjarr.2021.12.1.0495

Prognosis of COVID-19 patients with type 2 diabetes

2021· article· en· W3205783229 on OpenAlexaff
M S Brunda, Spandana Peddareddy, Arushi Mohan, Mahesh DM, Samriddha Thapa, Harshadayani Jagadish Kumar, GR Lingeshwaran

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsASTER
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiabetes mellitusInternal medicineStatistical significanceDiseaseAnalysis of varianceCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Type 2 Diabetes MellitusMann–Whitney U testInfectious disease (medical specialty)Endocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The pandemic of COVID-19, a disease caused by novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Recent data showed that hypertension, diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular diseases, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were the most prevalent comorbidities in COVID-19 patients. Additionally, data indicate that hypertension, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases are important risk factors for progression and unfavourable outcome in COVID-19 patients. Poorly controlled Type 2 diabetes mellitus was associated with severe progression of disease. Hence, large studies with comprehensive analysis of all risk factors and longer follow-up are necessary. Methods and analysis: A single-centre retrospective cross-sectional study of 300 patients that were SARS-CoV-2 positive from May to October 2020 was done. Data was entered into Microsoft excel data sheet and was analysed using SPSS 22 version software. Chi-square test or Fischer’s exact test (for 2x2 tables only) was used as test of significance for qualitative data. Independent t test was used as test of significance to identify the mean difference between two quantitative variables. ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) was used as test of significance to identify the mean difference between more than two quantitative variables. P value (Probability that the result is true) of <0.05 was considered as statistically significant after assuming all the rules of statistical tests. Data collected was analyzed in a group of patients who were sub divided into 2 groups diabetics and Non diabetics. The parameters studied included laboratory markers: D dimer, CRP, Lactate Dehydrogenase, Ferritin levels. To assess the glycemic control HbA1C levels were assessed. The outcome parameters considered were Oxygen requirement, assessing the requirement of intensive care and duration of stay in the hospital Conclusion: The patients with higher HbA1c values were found to have higher CRP and D-dimer values and required ICU shift and prolonged hospital stay. Hence, good control of diabetes will reduce the worsening of disease. In a country like India, where most of the population do not have health insurance cover proper control of diabetes, can reduce the burden on family. Hence, large studies with comprehensive analysis of all risk factors and longer follow-up are necessary.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.372 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of Advanced Research and ReviewsSame topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207