MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 15110: Objective Quantification of Disease Severity in Patients With Long Covid

2022· article· en· W4380867898 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Monica Verduzco‐Gutierrez, Juan Antonio Cabrera Carrillo, Marielisa Lopez, Mohanakrishnan Sathyamoorthy, Sachin A. Shah, Akil Loli

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)AnginaChest painPhysical therapyInternal medicineCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyLimitingSeverity of illnessDiseaseMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Patients with Long Covid have been described to present with over 55 subjectively reported symptoms with the most prevalent being fatigue and cardiopulmonary (e.g. chest pain, dyspnea). Objective quantification of the magnitude of disease severity in Long Covid patients using standardized validated tools is needed. Methods: This is a retrospective evaluation of patients referred to Flow Therapy for the management of Long Covid symptoms from Jan 2021 to Jan 2022. Patients were included if having complete data for 6 validated tools: PROMIS Fatigue score (range 0-20), Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) Summary Score (range 0-100), Duke Activity Status Index (DASI, range 0-58.2), 6-minute walk test (6MWT, range 0-unlimited), Rose Dyspnea Scale (RDS, range 0-4) and CCS angina class (CCS, range 1-4). The unpaired student’s t-test or the Fisher’s exact test were utilized for all analyses. Results: A total of 100 patients were included for analyses (age 54.2±14.5years, 60% female, 41% with CAD). The baseline PROMIS Fatigue, SAQ, DASI, and 6MWT were 15.8±3.6, 58.6±24.5, 12.9±12.7, and 1199.6±428.3 feet respectively. Moderate to severe dyspnea (RDS) or angina (CCS) was reported in 81% and 61% of patients respectively. When limiting to those without CAD (n=59), the PROMIS Fatigue was 15.7±3.4 compared to 16.0±3.6 in those with CAD (p=0.719). When limiting to those under the age of 41 (n=19), the PROMIS Fatigue was 15.9±4.0 compared to 15.8±3.5 in those 41 years or older (p=0.9466). No correlation was evident between age and PROMIS Fatigue score (r=0.107). SAQ and RDS were not different between the CAD and non-CAD patients (all p-values>0.111). There was no difference across all endpoints when comparing those under 41 versus 41 years or older (all p-values>0.087). Conclusion: Our data indicate a moderately high degree of disease severity using 6 validated markers assessing Long Covid symptoms. The validity of scores in patients with Long COVID applies to both patients with concurrent epicardial disease and patients without known epicardial disease. The severity of fatigue in Long Covid patients under 41 is similar to those 41 years or older. Our data provide a paradigm to more objectively diagnose Long Covid.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 topicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19→French-language works237,207→