Clinical severity of Omicron subvariants BA.1, BA.2, and BA.5 in a population‐based cohort study in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The SARS‐CoV‐2 variant Omicron emerged in late 2021. In British Columbia (BC), Canada, and globally, three genetically distinct subvariants of Omicron, BA.1, BA.2, and BA.5, emerged and became dominant successively within an 8‐month period. SARS‐CoV‐2 subvariants continue to circulate in the population, acquiring new mutations that have the potential to alter infectivity, immunity, and disease severity. Here, we report a propensity‐matched severity analysis from residents of BC over the course of the Omicron wave, including 39,237 individuals infected with BA.1, BA.2, or BA.5 based on paired high‐quality sequence data and linked to comprehensive clinical outcomes data between December 23, 2021 and August 31, 2022. Relative to BA.1, BA.2 cases were associated with a 15% and 28% lower risk of hospitalization and intensive care unit (ICU) admission (aHR hospital = 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.096–1.252; aHR ICU = 1.368; 95% CI = 1.152–1.624), whereas BA.5 infections were associated with an 18% higher risk of hospitalization (aHR hospital = 1.18; 95% CI = 1.133–1.224) after accounting for age, sex, comorbidities, vaccination status, geography, and social determinants of health. Phylogenetic analysis revealed no specific subclades associated with more severe clinical outcomes for any Omicron subvariant. In summary, BA.1, BA.2, and BA.5 subvariants were associated with differences in clinical severity, emphasizing how variant‐specific monitoring programs remain critical components of patient and population‐level public health responses as the pandemic continues.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".