Long-term physical impairments in survivors of COVID-19-associated ARDS compared with classic ARDS: A two-center study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This work aimed to compare physical impairment in survivors of classic ARDS compared with COVID-19-associated ARDS (CARDS) survivors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a prospective observational cohort study on 248 patients with CARDS and compared them with a historical cohort of 48 patients with classic ARDS. Physical performance was evaluated at 6 and 12 months after ICU discharge, using the Medical Research Council Scale (MRCss), 6-min walk test (6MWT), handgrip dynamometry (HGD), and fatigue severity score (FSS). We also assessed activities of daily living (ADLs) using the Barthel index. RESULTS: At 6 months, patients with classic ARDS had lower HGD (estimated difference [ED]: 11.71 kg, p < 0.001; ED 31.9% of predicted value, p < 0.001), 6MWT distance (ED: 89.11 m, p < 0.001; ED 12.96% of predicted value, p = 0.032), and more frequent significant fatigue (OR 0.35, p = 0.046). At 12 months, patients with classic ARDS had lower HGD (ED: 9.08 kg, p = 0.0014; ED 25.9% of predicted value, p < 0.001) and no difference in terms of 6MWT and fatigue. At 12 months, patients with classic ARDS improved their MRCss (ED 2.50, p = 0.006) and HGD (ED: 4.13 kg, p = 0.002; ED 9.45% of predicted value, p = 0.005), while those with CARDS did not. Most patients in both groups regained independence in ADLs at 6 months. COVID-19 diagnosis was a significant independent predictor of better HGD (p < 0.0001) and 6MWT performance (p = 0.001), and lower prevalence of fatigue (p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: Both classic ARDS and CARDS survivors experienced long-term impairments in physical functioning, confirming that post-intensive care syndrome remains a major legacy of critical illness. Surprisingly, however, persisting disability was more common in survivors of classic ARDS than in CARDS survivors. In fact, muscle strength measured with HGD was reduced in survivors of classic ARDS compared to CARDS patients at both 6 and 12 months. The 6MWT was reduced and fatigue was more common in classic ARDS compared to CARDS at 6 months but differences were no longer significant at 12 months. Most patients in both groups regained independent function in ADLs at 6 months.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".