Variation in the risk of death due to COVID‐19: An international multicenter cohort study of hospitalized adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is wide variation in mortality among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Whether this is related to patient or hospital factors is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of mortality for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and to determine whether the majority of that variation was explained by differences in patient characteristics across sites. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: An international multicenter cohort study of hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 enrolled from 10 hospitals in Ontario, Canada and 8 hospitals in Copenhagen, Denmark between January 1, 2020 and November 11, 2020. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Inpatient mortality. We used a multivariable multilevel regression model to compare the in-hospital mortality risk across hospitals and quantify the variation attributable to patient-level factors. RESULTS: There were 1364 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 in Ontario (n = 1149) and in Denmark (n = 215). In Ontario, the absolute risk of in-hospital mortality ranged from 12.0% to 39.8% across hospitals. Ninety-eight percent of the variation in mortality in Ontario was explained by differences in the characteristics of the patients. In Denmark, the absolute risk of inpatients ranged from 13.8% to 20.6%. One hundred percent of the variation in mortality in Denmark was explained by differences in the characteristics of the inpatients. CONCLUSION: There was wide variation in inpatient COVID-19 mortality across hospitals, which was largely explained by patient-level factors, such as age and severity of presenting illness. However, hospital-level factors that could have affected care, including resource availability and capacity, were not taken into account. These findings highlight potential limitations in comparing crude mortality rates across hospitals for the purposes of reporting on the quality of care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".