MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295511534 · doi:10.1007/s40620-022-01448-0

Sex differences in COVID-19 symptoms and outcomes in people with kidney failure treated with dialysis: a prospective cohort study

2022· article· en· W4295511534 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Tyrone G. Harrison, Trinity A. Tam, Meghan J. Elliott, Sofia B. Ahmed, Victoria J. Riehl-Tonn, Asha K. R. Swamy, Jamie L. Benham, Joanne L. Peterson, Jennifer M. MacRae

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nephrology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaAlberta HealthUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Society of NephrologyAmerican Society of Nephrology
KeywordsMedicineSore throatNauseaVomitingDialysisProspective cohort studyInternal medicineCohort studyCohortPopulationMalaisePediatricsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: People with kidney failure treated with dialysis are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and severe COVID-19 outcomes such as hospitalization and death. Though there are well-defined sex differences in outcomes for the general population with COVID-19, we do not know whether this translates into kidney failure populations. We aimed to estimate the differences in COVID-19 symptoms and clinical outcomes between males and females treated with maintenance dialysis. METHODS: In this prospective observational cohort study, we included adults treated with maintenance dialysis in Southern Alberta, Canada that tested positive for COVID-19 between March 2020 and February 2022. We examined the association between sex (dichotomized as male and female) with COVID-19 symptoms including fever, cough, malaise, shortness of breath, muscle joints/aches, nausea and/or vomiting, loss of appetite, diarrhea, headache, sore throat, and loss of smell/taste using chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. Secondary outcomes included 30-day hospitalization, ICU admission, and death. RESULTS: Of 1,329 cohort participants, 246 (18.5%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and were included in our study, including 95 females (39%). Of 207 participants with symptoms assessed, females had less frequent fever (p = 0.003), and more nausea or vomiting (p = 0.003) compared to males, after correction for multiple testing. Males exhibited no symptoms 25% of the time, compared with 10% of females (p = 0.01, not significant when corrected for multiple testing). We did not identify statistically significant differences in clinical outcomes between the sexes, though vaccinated patients had lower odds of hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Sex differences in COVID-19 symptoms were identified in a cohort of patients treated with maintenance dialysis, which may inform sex-specific screening strategies in dialysis units. Further work is necessary to examine mechanisms for identified sex differences.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.586

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NephrologySame topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207