Differences in COVID-19 testing and adverse outcomes by race, ethnicity, sex, and health system setting in a large diverse US cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Racial/ethnic disparities during the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic led to differences in COVID-19 testing and adverse outcomes. We examine differences in testing and adverse outcomes by race/ethnicity and sex across a geographically diverse and system-based COVID-19 cohort collaboration. METHODS: Observational study among adults (≥18 years) within six US cohorts from March 1, 2020 to August 31, 2020 using data from electronic health record and patient reporting. Race/ethnicity and sex as risk factors were primary exposures, with health system type (integrated health system, academic health system, or interval cohort) as secondary. Proportions measured SARS-CoV-2 testing and positivity; attributed hospitalization and death related to COVID-19. Relative risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals quantified associations between exposures and main outcomes. RESULTS: 5,958,908 patients were included. Hispanic patients had the highest proportions of SARS-CoV-2 testing (16%) and positivity (18%), while Asian/Pacific Islander patients had the lowest portions tested (11%) and White patients had the lowest positivity rates (5%). Men had a lower likelihood of testing (RR = 0.90 [0.89-0.90]) and a higher positivity risk (RR = 1.16 [1.14-1.18]) compared to women. Black patients were more likely to have COVID-19-related hospitalizations (RR = 1.36 [1.28-1.44]) and death (RR = 1.17 [1.03-1.32]) compared with White patients. Men were more likely to be hospitalized (RR = 1.30 [1.16-1.22]) or die (RR = 1.70 [1.53-1.89]) compared to women. These racial/ethnic and sex differences were reflected in both health system types. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports evidence of disparities by race/ethnicity and sex during the COVID-19 pandemic that persisted even in healthcare settings with reduced barriers to accessing care. Further research is needed to understand and prevent the drivers that resulted in higher burdens of morbidity among certain Black patients and men.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".