Relationship of Heterologous Virus Responses and Outcomes in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The clinical trajectory of COVID-19 may be influenced by previous responses to heterologous viruses. We examined the relationship of Abs against different viruses to clinical trajectory groups from the National Institutes of Health IMPACC (Immunophenotyping Assessment in a COVID-19 Cohort) study of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Whereas initial Ab titers to SARS-CoV-2 tended to be higher with increasing severity (excluding fatal disease), those to seasonal coronaviruses trended in the opposite direction. Initial Ab titers to influenza and parainfluenza viruses also tended to be lower with increasing severity. However, no significant relationship was observed for Abs to other viruses, including measles, CMV, EBV, and respiratory syncytial virus. We hypothesize that some individuals may produce lower or less durable Ab responses to respiratory viruses generally (reflected in lower baseline titers in our study), and that this may carry over into poorer outcomes for COVID-19 (despite high initial SARS-CoV-2 titers). We further looked at longitudinal changes in Ab responses to heterologous viruses, but found little change during the course of acute COVID-19 infection. We saw significant trends with age for Ab levels to many of these viruses, but no difference in longitudinal SARS-CoV-2 titers for those with high versus low seasonal coronavirus titers. We detected no difference in longitudinal SARS-CoV-2 titers for CMV seropositive versus seronegative patients, although there was an overrepresentation of CMV seropositives among the IMPACC cohort, compared with expected frequencies in the United States population. Our results both reinforce findings from other studies and suggest (to our knowledge) new relationships between the response to SARS-CoV-2 and Abs to heterologous viruses.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".