WHAT IS THE RISK OF DEVELOPING A SEVERE FORM OF COVID-19 INFECTION AMONG ADULTS WHO CURRENTLY SMOKE COMPARED TO EX-SMOKERS? A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Introduction Smoking is one of the lifestyle choices associated with an increased risk of chronic health conditions and poorer COVID-19 outcomes. Because it is known that the lungs recover after quitting smoking, a direct comparison of the severity of COVID-19 infection in current and former smokers needs to be investigated. Methods and analysis The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol (PRISMA-P) 2015 Checklist was used. Non-randomized studies will be searched in PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL library, Embase, and Epistemonikos from December 2019 to the present. Hand-searching of grey literature, key journals, and reference lists will be conducted This review will include studies of current and former smokers, with the main outcome being ICU admission, assisted respiration, or death. Two independent reviewers will select primary studies and abstract data from them. The Newcastle-Ottawa checklist will be used to assess the risk of bias, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework will be used to assess the quality of cumulative evidence. RevMan 5.4 will be used for data analysis. The I 2 statistic will be used to evaluate heterogeneity. For similar studies, the fixed-effect method of a meta-analysis will be used; otherwise, a random-effect model will be used. The qualitative synthesis will be used for studies that are ineligible for the quantitative approach. Ethical consideration and dissemination Because published data will be reviewed, no ethical approval is required. Our findings will be presented at national and/or international conferences, and they will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO registration number CRD42022368552 ARTICLE SUMMARY Strengths and limitations of this study This is a focused research question comparing the current and ex-smokers risk of contracting the severe form of COVID-19. This systematic review and meta-analysis will provide evidence of the dangers of smoking during the COVID-19 pandemic. The PRISMA-P reporting guidelines were strictly followed while writing this protocol. Study selection will be carried out by two independent reviewers and a third person will intervene if a disagreement arises. A potential limitation is that an observational study design will be used in this systematic review.
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 | 0.125 | 0.195 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.028 | 0.052 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 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".