Association between phase angle and adverse clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID‐19: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phase angle, obtained by bioelectrical impedance, is an indicator of cellular integrity and has been proposed as a prognostic parameter in patients who are critically ill. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the association between phase angle and adverse clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). An extensive literature search was performed in the MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases, with interest in observational studies evaluating the association between phase angle and adverse clinical outcomes in individuals aged ≥18 years hospitalized with COVID-19. Studies were independently selected by two reviewers, according to eligibility criteria. Subsequently, data were extracted and presented in a qualitative synthesis. The evaluation of the quality of the studies was performed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The full methodology was published in PROSPERO (ID CRD42022306177). A total of 392 articles were identified, resulting in seven selected studies, of which six were prospective cohorts and one was retrospective. In the quality assessment, six studies obtained scores equal to or greater than seven, indicating a low risk of bias. A total of 750 participants composed the samples of the selected studies. Five studies reported an independent association between phase angle and adverse clinical outcomes during hospitalization for COVID-19, with emphasis on prolonged hospitalization and mechanical ventilation and higher mortality in patients with a lower phase angle. Thus, phase angle measurement can be useful in the early identification of risks in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, for the purpose of adequacy of clinical management.
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 | 0.007 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".