Immunosuppression and COVID-19 infection in British Columbia: Protocol for a linkage study of population-based administrative and self-reported survey data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Cases of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) continue to spread around the world even one year after the declaration of a global pandemic. Those with weakened immune systems, due to immunosuppressive medications or disease, may be at higher risk of COVID-19. This includes individuals with autoimmune diseases, cancer, transplants, and dialysis patients. Assessing the risk and outcomes of COVID-19 in this population has been challenging. While administrative databases provide data with minimal selection and recall bias, clinical and behavioral data is lacking. To address this, we are collecting self-reported survey data from a randomly selected subsample with and without COVID-19, which will be linked to administrative health data, to better quantify the risk of COVID-19 infection associated with immunosuppression. Methods and analysis Using administrative and laboratory data from British Columbia (BC), Canada, we established a population-based case-control study of all individuals who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Each case was matched to 40 randomly selected individuals from two control groups: individuals who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 (i.e., negative controls) and untested individuals from the general population (i.e., untested controls). We will contact 1000 individuals from each group to complete a survey co-designed with patient partners. A conditional logistic regression model will adjust for potential confounders and effect modifiers. We will examine the odds of COVID-19 infection according to immunosuppressive medication or disease type. To adjust for relevant confounders and effect modifiers not available in administrative data, the survey will include questions on behavioural variables that influence probability of being tested, acquiring COVID-19, and experiencing severe outcomes. Ethics and dissemination This study has received approval from the University of British Columbia Clinical Research Ethics Board [H20-01914]. Findings will be disseminated through scientific conferences, open access peer-reviewed journals, COVID-19 research repositories and dissemination channels used by our patient partners.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".