MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4310812792 · doi:10.14740/jocmr4821

Alterations in Laboratory Parameters Related to Disease Severity in Vaccinated Patients Against SARS-CoV-2

2022· article· en· W4310812792 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maria Lagadinou, George Eleftherakis, Dimitris Papageorgiou, Anastasia Chioni, Themistoklis Paraskevas, Christina Platanaki, Markos Marangos, Dimitrios Velissaris

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineWhite blood cellAbsolute neutrophil countDiabetes mellitusBlood pressureRetrospective cohort studyDiseaseGastroenterologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread rapidly worldwide with global financial and health care systems consequences. It is already well recognized that immunization against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a precondition for blocking mutations and prevent the emergence of variants. The aim of the study was to investigate the possible relationship between COVID-19 vaccines and the commonly used disease-related blood biomarkers. Methods: Adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who were hospitalized from November 8, 2021, to December 31, 2021, were included. The retrospective study was conducted in Patras University Hospital, Greece. Two groups of patients were assessed, the ones who were previously vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 (group A, n = 21), and those who were not (group B, n = 55). After analysis of peripheral blood, we calculated on admission day for each patient the total white blood cell (WBC), absolute lymphocytes count (ALC), absolute monocyte count, D-dimers, C-reactive protein (CRP) plasma levels, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), ferritin, high-sensitive troponin, as well as the arterial oxygen partial pressure/fractional inspired oxygen (PO 2 /FiO 2 ) ratio. Results: The median age of all patients was 65.3 ± 15.2 years old; 68.4% were men and 31.6% were women. Comorbidities were present in 51 patients (67.1%). Hypertension and diabetes were observed as the most common comorbidities (33.3%). About 72.4% of the patients were unvaccinated or have received the first dose of vaccine, and 27.6% were completely vaccinated. No statistical difference was found in the total WBC count and ALC between the two groups (group A vs. group B: 8,168.95 ± 7,584.4 vs. 8,521.9 ± 6,571.3, P = 0.848 and 3,052.1 ± 7,230.7 vs. 1,279.6 ± 1,218.6, P = 0.087). Monocytes count in both groups did not show statistical difference: group A vs. group B: 672.6 ± 384.7 vs. 637.9 ± 477.8 (P = 0.754). Similarly, no difference for D-dimers (1,348.5 ± 1,397.6 vs. 1,850.9 ± 3,877.5, P = 0.575), ferritin (1,082.8 ± 1,399.5 vs. 1,327.4 ± 1,307.8, P = 0.508), high-sensitive troponin (113.6 ± 318.1 vs. 157.5 ± 48.8, P = 0.252), and CRP (6.92 ± 4.9 vs. 7.4 ± 5.9, P = 0.732). For LDH plasma levels, the statistical difference was significant (274.2 ± 85.6 vs. 387.5 ± 223.4, P = 0.003), as well as for the PO 2 /FiO 2 ratio (355.6 ± 129.7 vs. 260.5 ± 123.3, P = 0,006). Conclusions: In a mixed population hospitalized for COVID-19, only LDH plasma levels and the PaO 2 /FiO 2 on admission day showed statistically significant difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. Although unvaccinated patients are more likely to develop severe illness, they did not express significantly higher values of commonly used plasma biomarkers such as ferritin, CRP, and D-dimers which are related to disease severity. J Clin Med Res. 2022;14(11):487-491 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jocmr4821

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.199
GPT teacher head0.575
Teacher spread0.376 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research→Same topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies→French-language works237,207→