A systematic review on physical function, activities of daily living and health-related quality of life in COVID-19 survivors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the published studies that investigated the physical function, activities of daily living and health-related quality of life in COVID-19 survivors. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, SciELO, and Cochrane Library for studies that evaluated the physical function, activities of daily living and health-related quality of life after COVID-19 from the earliest date available to July 2021. Two independent reviewers screened and selected the studies. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate methodological quality. RESULTS: We included 35 studies in this systematic review. Of the 35 studies included, 28 were cohort, and 7 cross-sectional studies The studies demonstrated that COVID-19 survivors had reduced levels of physical function, activities of daily living, and health-related quality of life. Furthermore, incomplete recovery of physical function, and performance in activities of daily living were observed 1 to 6 months post-infection. DISCUSSION: Physical disability and reduction in health-related quality of life is a common condition in post-COVID-19 and impairments may persist up to 1 to 6 months. Researchers and clinicians can use these findings to understand the potential disabilities and rehabilitation needs of people recovering from the COVID-19.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it