Outcomes of COVID-19 Among High-Risk Individuals: A Study Comparing Febrile and Afebrile Presentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Fever is one of the most frequent symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and clinicians are faced with a practice question on whether fever is a risk for progression of disease especially in persons with risk factors for severe illness. We studied if a difference exists in the clinical course and outcome between febrile and afebrile (symptomatic) presentation. Methods: Patients aged > 18 years with confirmed COVID-19 with at least one risk factor for severe illness were studied. Enrolment was done from a home COVID-19 care cohort between May 2020 and March 2022. Participants were divided into febrile and afebrile groups and further divided into six sub-groups based on their comorbidities (diabetes mellitus, hypertension, chronic lung disease, chronic kidney disease, liver disease and others) using a pre-specified inclusion method. Severity of illness was classified as non-hypoxic or hypoxic and clinical course was monitored. Results: A total of 3,752 patients were studied, of whom 965 (25.7%) had severe illness and 117 (3.1%) died. Persons with obesity (P < 0.001), chronic kidney disease (P = 0.003) and chronic liver disease (P = 0.02) more frequently had presentation without fever. No significant difference in hypoxia (P = 0.35) or mortality (P = 0.50) was observed between febrile (n = 1,240) and afebrile (n = 2,512) presentation. Conclusion: Fever in COVID-19 was not associated with severe illness or mortality. The overall and risk factor specific mortality observed in our study is substantially low, probably due to lesser bias in selection of study participants or due to ethnicity of study population.
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 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 | 0.018 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".