Rationale and design of the SARCoidosis Outcomes in all respiratory Viral Infectious Diseases (SARCOVID) Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Respiratory infections are ubiquitous. The COVID-19 pandemic has refocused our attention on how morbid and potentially fatal they can be, and how host factors have an impact on the clinical course and outcomes. Due to a range of vulnerabilities, patients with sarcoidosis may be at higher risk of poor outcomes from respiratory infections. The objective of the SARCoidosis Outcomes in all respiratory Viral Infectious Diseases (SARCOVID) Study is to determine the short-term and long-term impacts of respiratory viral illnesses (COVID-19 and non-COVID-19) in sarcoidosis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Up to 20 clinical sites across the USA are participating in the recruitment of 2000 patients for this observational, prospective study. To ensure that the study cohort is representative of the general population with sarcoidosis, participating sites include those dedicated to reaching under-represented minorities or patients from non-urban areas. Baseline data on demographic features, comorbidities, sarcoidosis characteristics and pre-enrolment lung function will be captured at study entry. During this 3-year study, all acute respiratory infectious events (from SARS-CoV-2 and any other respiratory pathogen) will be assessed and recorded at quarterly intervals. The level of required medical care and survival outcomes determine infection severity, and the impact of infection on quality of life measures will be recorded. Post-infection lung function and imaging results will measure the long-term impact on the trajectory of sarcoidosis. Patients will be analysed according to the clinical phenotypes of cardiac and fibrotic pulmonary sarcoidosis. Control groups include non-infected patients with sarcoidosis and patients with non-sarcoidosis interstitial lung disease. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Each site received local institutional review board approval prior to enrolling patients, with the consent process determined by local institution standards. Data will be published in a timely manner (goal <12 months) at the conclusion of the 3-year follow-up period and will be made available upon request.
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 | 0.042 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.005 |
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".