A longitudinal prospective cohort study of health-related quality of life assessment in outpatient adults with post-COVID-19 conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Few studies have reported the long-term effects of post-COVID-19 condition (PCC) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We aim to assess HRQoL in outpatient adults with PCC over a 2-year period. Methods: This prospective longitudinal cohort study compared 413 PCC participants (cases) to 520 COVID-19-positive participants who recovered (controls). HRQoL was assessed with the EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level preference-based questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and fitness and frailty with the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) at each visit for up to 24 months. Results: Among a total of 933 participants, 413 (42.3%) met the definition of PCC (cases) and 520 (55.7%) did not (controls). Overall, there was a significant difference in EQ-5D-5L index score from 3 months post-infection up to 18 months between cases and controls ( p < 0.001). This score continued to decline up to 18 months in the PCC group only. Most impaired EQ-5D-5L dimensions at 12 months in the PCC group included pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression, and usual activities. Conclusions: This is one of the first studies to report 2-year alterations of HRQoL in outpatients with PCC. Our study highlights the need for continued monitoring for PCC long-term consequences. Given the high proportion of PCC participants experiencing anxiety/depression problems, further studies are needed to specifically address mental health in this population.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".