MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Brain Health After COVID-19, Pneumonia, Myocardial Infarction, or Critical Illness

2023· article· en· W4390347028 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Costanza Peinkhofer, Pardis Zarifkar, Rune Haubo Bojesen Christensen, Vardan Nersesjan, Lise Fonsmark, Charlotte Mérie, Anne‐Mette Lebech, Terese L. Katzenstein, Lia E. Bang, Jesper Kjærgaard, Pradeesh Sivapalan, Jens‐Ulrik Stæhr Jensen, Michael E. Benros, Daniel Kondziella

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersH. Lundbeck A/SNovo Nordisk FondenNovo NordiskLundbeckfonden
KeywordsMedicineAnxietyDepression (economics)Prospective cohort studyCohortMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCohort studyPneumoniaPediatricsCognitionInternal medicinePsychiatryCognitive impairment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Brain health is most likely compromised after hospitalization for COVID-19; however, long-term prospective investigations with matched control cohorts and face-to-face assessments are lacking. Objective: To assess whether long-term cognitive, psychiatric, or neurological complications among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 differ from those among patients hospitalized for other medical conditions of similar severity and from healthy controls. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study with matched controls was conducted at 2 academic hospitals in Copenhagen, Denmark. The case cohort comprised patients with COVID-19 hospitalized between March 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021. Control cohorts consisted of patients hospitalized for pneumonia, myocardial infarction, or non-COVID-19 intensive care-requiring illness between March 1, 2020, and June 30, 2021, and healthy age- and sex-matched individuals. The follow-up period was 18 months; participants were evaluated between November 1, 2021, and February 28, 2023. Exposures: Hospitalization for COVID-19. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was overall cognition, assessed by the Screen for Cognitive Impairment in Psychiatry (SCIP) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Secondary outcomes were executive function, anxiety, depressive symptoms, and neurological deficits. Results: The study included 345 participants, including 120 patients with COVID-19 (mean [SD] age, 60.8 [14.4] years; 70 men [58.3%]), 125 hospitalized controls (mean [SD] age, 66.0 [12.0] years; 73 men [58.4%]), and 100 healthy controls (mean [SD] age, 62.9 [15.3] years; 46 men [46.0%]). Patients with COVID-19 had worse cognitive status than healthy controls (estimated mean SCIP score, 59.0 [95% CI, 56.9-61.2] vs 68.8 [95% CI, 66.2-71.5]; estimated mean MoCA score, 26.5 [95% CI, 26.0-27.0] vs 28.2 [95% CI, 27.8-28.6]), but not hospitalized controls (mean SCIP score, 61.6 [95% CI, 59.1-64.1]; mean MoCA score, 27.2 [95% CI, 26.8-27.7]). Patients with COVID-19 also performed worse than healthy controls during all other psychiatric and neurological assessments. However, except for executive dysfunction (Trail Making Test Part B; relative mean difference, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.01-1.31]), the brain health of patients with COVID-19 was not more impaired than among hospitalized control patients. These results remained consistent across various sensitivity analyses. Conclusions and Relevance: This prospective cohort study suggests that post-COVID-19 brain health was impaired but, overall, no more than the brain health of patients from 3 non-COVID-19 cohorts of comparable disease severity. Long-term associations with brain health might not be specific to COVID-19 but associated with overall illness severity and hospitalization. This information is important for putting understandable concerns about brain health after COVID-19 into perspective.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.570
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.355 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19French-language works237,207