MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4212840501 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofac037

Coinfections in Patients With Cancer and COVID-19: A COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) Study

2022· article· en· W4212840501 on OpenAlexaff
Gowri Satyanarayana, Kyle T. Enriquez, Tianyi Sun, Elizabeth J. Klein, Maheen Z. Abidi, Shailesh Advani, Joy Awosika, Ziad Bakouny, Babar Bashir, Stephanie Berg, Marilia Bernardes, Pamela Egan, Arielle Elkrief, Lawrence Feldman, Christopher R. Friese, Shipra Goel, Cyndi Gonzalez Gomez, K Grant, Elizabeth A. Griffiths, Shuchi Gulati, Shilpa Gupta, Clara Hwang, Jayanshu Jain, Chinmay Jani, Anna Kaltsas, Anup Kasi, Hina Khan, Natalie Knox, Vadim S. Koshkin, Daniel H. Kwon, Chris Labaki, Gary H. Lyman, Rana R. McKay, Christopher McNair, Gayathri Nagaraj, Elizabeth S. Nakasone, Taylor K. Nonato, Adam J. Olszewski, Orestis A. Panagiotou, Matthew Puc, Pedram Razavi, Elizabeth Robilotti, Miriam Santos-Dutra, Andrew Schmidt, Dimpy P. Shah, Sumit Shah, Kendra Vieira, Lisa B. Weissmann, Trisha M. Wise‐Draper, Ulysses Wu, Julie Wu, Toni K. Choueiri, Sanjay Mishra, Jeremy L. Warner, Benjamin French, Dimitrios Farmakiotis

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institutes of HealthNational Cancer InstituteNational Institute on AgingVanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Medicine2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)CancerBetacoronavirusCoinfectionCoronavirus InfectionsVirologyInternal medicineVirusOutbreakDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The frequency of coinfections and their association with outcomes have not been adequately studied among patients with cancer and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a high-risk group for coinfection. METHODS: We included adult (≥18 years) patients with active or prior hematologic or invasive solid malignancies and laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) infection, using data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19, NCT04354701). We captured coinfections within ±2 weeks from diagnosis of COVID-19, identified factors cross-sectionally associated with risk of coinfection, and quantified the association of coinfections with 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Among 8765 patients (hospitalized or not; median age, 65 years; 47.4% male), 16.6% developed coinfections: 12.1% bacterial, 2.1% viral, 0.9% fungal. An additional 6.4% only had clinical diagnosis of a coinfection. The adjusted risk of any coinfection was positively associated with age >50 years, male sex, cardiovascular, pulmonary, and renal comorbidities, diabetes, hematologic malignancy, multiple malignancies, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, progressing cancer, recent cytotoxic chemotherapy, and baseline corticosteroids; the adjusted risk of superinfection was positively associated with tocilizumab administration. Among hospitalized patients, high neutrophil count and C-reactive protein were positively associated with bacterial coinfection risk, and high or low neutrophil count with fungal coinfection risk. Adjusted mortality rates were significantly higher among patients with bacterial (odds ratio [OR], 1.61; 95% CI, 1.33-1.95) and fungal (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.28-3.76) coinfections. CONCLUSIONS: Viral and fungal coinfections are infrequent among patients with cancer and COVID-19, with the latter associated with very high mortality rates. Clinical and laboratory parameters can be used to guide early empiric antimicrobial therapy, which may improve clinical outcomes.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.360 · 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

Citations19
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impactsFrench-language works237,207