Clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients with solid and hematological cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Background:</ns3:bold> Previous research has consistently shown the significant difference in outcome between cancerous and non-cancerous patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, no studies have compared the clinical manifestation of COVID-19 in hematologic cancers patients and solid cancers patients. Therefore, we analyzed the outcome of COVID-19 patients with hematological cancer and primary solid cancer worldwide through a meta-analysis and systematic review. </ns3:p> <ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Methods:</ns3:bold> This meta-analysis and systematic review included English language articles published between December 2019 – January 2021 from Pubmed and Google Scholar. The Newcastle Ottawa Score was used to assess the quality and bias of included studies. The outcome measures were case-fatality rate and critical care events for COVID-19 patients with cancer and comorbidities. </ns3:p> <ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Results:</ns3:bold> The initial search found 8910 articles, of 20 were included in the analysis. Critical care events and mortality were higher in the hematological than primary solid cancer group (relative risk (RR)=1.22 & 1.65; p <0.001). Conversely, mortality was lower in patients with two or fewer comorbidities (RR=0.57; p<0.001) and patients under the 75-year-old group (RR=0.53; p< 0.05). </ns3:p> <ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Conclusion</ns3:bold> <ns3:bold>s:</ns3:bold> <ns3:bold/> Hematologic malignancy, age, and the number of comorbidities are predictor factors for worse prognosis in COVID-19 infection. </ns3:p>
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".