MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226024139 · doi:10.2196/29343

Factors Associated With COVID-19 Death in the United States: Cohort Study

2022· article· en· W4226024139 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Uan-I Chen, Hua Xu, Trudy Millard Krause, Raymond Greenberg, Dong Xiao, Xiaoqian Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesUniversity of Texas Health Science Center at HoustonNational Institute on AgingNational Science FoundationNational Institutes of HealthCancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas
KeywordsMedicineDemographyHazard ratioCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Incidence (geometry)CohortProportional hazards modelCohort studyObesityConfidence intervalDiseaseInternal medicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Since the initial COVID-19 cases were identified in the United States in February 2020, the United States has experienced a high incidence of the disease. Understanding the risk factors for severe outcomes identifies the most vulnerable populations and helps in decision-making. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the factors associated with COVID-19-related deaths from a large, national, individual-level data set. METHODS: A cohort study was conducted using data from the Optum de-identified COVID-19 electronic health record (EHR) data set; 1,271,033 adult participants were observed from February 1, 2020, to August 31, 2020, until their deaths due to COVID-19, deaths due to other reasons, or the end of the study. Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to evaluate the risks for each patient characteristic. RESULTS: : HR 1.71, 95% CI 1.50-1.96), race (Hispanic White, African American, Asian vs non-Hispanic White: HR 2.46, 95% CI 2.01-3.02; HR 2.27, 95% CI 2.06-2.50; HR 2.06, 95% CI 1.65-2.57), region (South, Northeast, Midwest vs West: HR 1.62, 95% CI 1.33-1.98; HR 2.50, 95% CI 2.06-3.03; HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.11-1.64), chronic respiratory disease (HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.12-1.32), cardiac disease (HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01-1.19), diabetes (HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.75-2.10), recent diagnosis of lung cancer (HR 1.70, 95% CI 1.14-2.55), severely reduced kidney function (HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.69-2.19), stroke or dementia (HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15-1.36), other neurological diseases (HR 1.77, 95% CI 1.59-1.98), organ transplant (HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.09-1.67), and other immunosuppressive conditions (HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.01-1.46). CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the largest national cohort studies in the United States; we identified several patient characteristics associated with COVID-19-related deaths, and the results can serve as the basis for policy making. The study also offered directions for future studies, including the effect of other socioeconomic factors on the increased risk for minority groups.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations26
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and SurveillanceSame topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207