MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312522458 · doi:10.22374/cjgim.v17i2.579

Prognostic Value of Inflammatory Markers in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients

2022· article· en· W4312522458 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Noam Raiter, Mats Junek, Ahmad Rahim, Siraj Mithoowani

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of General Internal Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsImpactMcMaster University
FundersLEO Pharma
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Logistic regressionContext (archaeology)Internal medicineIntensive care unitConfidence intervalD-dimerC-reactive proteinSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)GastroenterologyDiseaseInflammation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is unclear whether D-dimer is a disease-specific marker for COVID-19 or part of the general inflammatory response alongside C-reactive protein (CRP) and other acute-phase reactants. We extracted data of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 for demographics, comorbidities, biochemical data, and outcomes. Using multivariable logistic regression, the value of D-dimer in predicting intensive care unit (ICU) admission or mortality was measured. Of 1175 patients, 263 were admitted to the ICU and 226 died. CRP predicted both ICU admission and mortality [Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval 1.01 (1.01–1.01) and 1.00 (1.00–1.01), respectively] but D-dimer was not predictive of either outcome [ORs 1.02 (0.97–1.06) and 0.99 (0.93–1.06)]. This suggests D-dimer levels are not independently predictive of COVID-19 severity or mortality. Our results confirm findings from smaller cohorts and demonstrate the inflammatory characteristics of COVID in the Canadian context.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.206
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.338 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of General Internal MedicineSame topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207