MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313461932 · doi:10.1136/thorax-2022-219378

Longitudinal follow-up of postacute COVID-19 syndrome: DL<sub>CO</sub>, quality-of-life and MRI pulmonary gas-exchange abnormalities

2023· article· en· W4313461932 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexander M. Matheson, Marrissa J. McIntosh, H.K. Kooner, Mohamed Abdelrazek, Mitchell S. Albert, Inderdeep Dhaliwal, J. Michael Nicholson, Alexei Ouriadov, Sarah Svenningsen, Grace Párraga

Bibliographic record

VenueThorax · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityLakehead UniversityWestern University
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareLondon Health Sciences Centre
KeywordsMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Quality of life (healthcare)PathologyInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

129Xe MRI red blood cell to alveolar tissue plasma ratio (RBC:TP) abnormalities have been observed in ever-hospitalised and never-hospitalised people with postacute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS). But, it is not known if such abnormalities resolve when symptoms and quality-of-life scores improve. We evaluated 21 participants with PACS, 7±4 months (baseline) and 14±4 months (follow-up) postinfection. Significantly improved diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO, Δ=14%pred;95%CI 7 to 21, p<0.001), postexertional dyspnoea (Δ=−0.7; 95%CI=−0.2 to –1.2, p=0.019), St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire-score (SGRQ Δ=−6; 95% CI=−1 to –11, p=0.044) but not RBC:TP (Δ=0.03; 95% CI=0.01 to 0.05, p=0.051) were observed at 14 months. DLCOcorrelated with RBC:TP (r=0.60, 95% CI=0.22 to 0.82, p=0.004) at 7 months. While DLCOand SGRQ measurements improved, these values did not normalise 14 months post-infection. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04584671 .

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)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations34
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThoraxSame topicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19French-language works237,207