MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4313271249 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-062453

Hospitalised COVID-19 outcomes are predicted by hypoxaemia and pneumonia phenotype irrespective of the timing of their emergence

2022· article· en· W4313271249 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Brittany Salter, Bianca DeBenedictis, Laura Spatafora, Jessica Kapralik, Candice Luo, Laura A. Dawson, Mats Junek, Tyler Pitre, Aaron Jones, Marla Beauchamp, Rebecca Kruisselbrink, MyLinh Duong, Andrew P. Costa, Jennifer Tsang, Terence Ho

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsImpactNiagara Health SystemMcMaster University
FundersInstitute of Health Services and Policy ResearchCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Pneumonia2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)PhenotypeBetacoronavirusIntensive care medicinePediatricsVirologyInternal medicineOutbreakGeneticsDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the known clinical importance of hypoxemia and pneumonia, there is a paucity of evidence for these variables with respect to risk of mortality and short-term outcomes among those hospitalised with COVID-19. Objective Describe the prevalence and clinical course of patients hospitalised with COVID-19 based on oxygenation and pneumonia status at presentation and determine the incidence of emergent hypoxaemia or radiographic pneumonia during admission. Methods A retrospective study was conducted using a Canadian regional registry. Patients were stratified according to hypoxaemia/pneumonia phenotype and prevalence. Clinical parameters were compared between phenotypes using χ 2 and one-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA). Cox analysis estimated adjusted Hazard Ratios (HR) for associations between disease outcomes and phenotypes. Results At emergency department (ED) admission, the prevalence of pneumonia and hypoxaemia was 43% and 50%, respectively, and when stratified to phenotypes: 28.2% hypoxaemia + /pneumonia + , 22.2% hypoxaemia + /pneumonia − , 14.5% hypoxaemia − /pneumonia + and 35.1% hypoxaemia − /pneumonia − . Mortality was 31.1% in the hypoxaemia + /pneumonia − group and 26.3% in the hypoxaemia + /pneumonia + group. Hypoxaemia with pneumonia and without pneumonia predicted higher probability of death. Hypoxaemia either <24 hours or ≥24 hours after hospitalisation predicted higher mortality and need for home oxygen compared with those without hypoxaemia. Patients with early hypoxaemia had higher probability of Intensive care unit (ICU) admission compared with those with late hypoxaemia. Conclusion Mortality in COVID-19 infection is predicted by hypoxaemia with or without pneumonia and was greatest in patients who initially presented with hypoxaemia. The emergence of hypoxaemia was predicted by radiographic pneumonia. Patients with early and emergent hypoxaemia had similar mortality but were less likely to be admitted to ICU. There may be delayed identification of hypoxaemia, which prevents timely escalation of care.

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)0.003
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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.356 · 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies→French-language works237,207→