MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 11750: Disparities Among Covid-19 Mortality in Patients With Concurrent Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease in 2020: A Nationwide Analysis

2022· article· en· W4380794350 on OpenAlexaff
Jacqueline Vuong, Daniel Addison, Mary Branch, Sherry‐Ann Brown, Nausheen Akhter, Sarju Ganatra, Tochi Okwuosa, Mamas Mamas, Harriette G Van Spall, Eric H. Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePopulationMortality rateDiseasePandemicCause of deathMyocarditisDemographyInternal medicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Environmental healthInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted important socioeconomic health disparities in the United States. Both cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer are associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. We describe racial or ethnic, sex, and rural disparities in mortality rates from COVID-19 in the US cardio-oncology (C-O) population with concurrent cancer and CVD. Methods: Using the multiple causes of death data files within CDC WONDER, we assessed survival outcomes from March to December 2020 (most intense for COVID-19 deaths) by race or ethnicity, sex, and rural status. C-O populations were defined as having ICD 10 codes C00-C97 for “malignant neoplasms” and ICD 10 codes I10-I15 for “hypertensive heart disease”, I20-I25 for “ischemic heart disease” I30-I51 for “other forms of heart disease” encompassing valvular disorders, cardiac arrythmias, myocarditis, and heart failure & cardiomyopathies, or I70 for peripheral atherosclerosis listed as contributing causes of death. In this population, those with ICD 10 code U07.1 for “COVID-19” listed as an underlying cause of death were included. Age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMR) were calculated based on contemporary US population standards. Results: Overall, there were 6,311 deaths from COVID-19 among 16,282 all-cause deaths in the C-O population (AAMR 5.17 deaths/1,000,000 person-years; 95% CI 5.04-5.29). These deaths comprised 1.80% of all COVID-19 deaths (total 350,831) in the study period. Mortality rates were higher in men than women (AAMR 7.35 vs 3.44 deaths/1,000,000; HR 2.13, p<0.0001). Among racial or ethnic groups, mortality rates were highest among African Americans (AAMR 9.31 deaths/1,000,000; 95% CI 8.75-9.88), and higher among Hispanic than non-Hispanic Americans (AAMR 7.10 vs 4.86 deaths/1,000,000; HR 1.46, p<0.0001). Mortality rates were higher in rural areas than metropolitan areas (crude mortality rate 9.15 vs 6.20 deaths/1,000,000; HR 1.48, p <0.001). Conclusion: Among cancer patients with concurrent CVD, COVID-19 deaths were disproportionately higher in male, African American, Hispanic, and rural patients. Further research is needed to understand socioeconomic factors underpinning these disparities and design interventions to improve patient outcomes.

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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts→French-language works237,207→