Risk assessment of psychiatric complications in infectious diseases: CALCulation of prognostic indices on example of COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Factors such as coronavirus neurotropism, which is associated with a massive increase in pro-inflammatory molecules and neuroglial reactivity, along with experiences of intensive therapy wards, fears of pandemic, and social restrictions, are pointed out to contribute to the occurrence of neuropsychiatric conditions. Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate the role of COVID-19 inflammation-related indices as potential markers predicting psychiatric complications in COVID-19. Methods: A total of 177 individuals were examined, with 117 patients from a temporary infectious disease ward hospitalized due to COVID-19 forming the experimental group and 60 patients from the outpatient department showing signs of acute respiratory viral infection comprising the validation group. The PLR index (platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio) and the CALC index (comorbidity + age + lymphocyte + C-reactive protein) were calculated. Present State Examination 10, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Montreal Cognitive Assessment were used to assess psychopathology in the sample. Regression and Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, establishment of cutoff values for the COVID-19 prognosis indices, contingency tables, and comparison of means were used. Results: = 0.0775; p = 0.041) between CALC values exceeding seven points and the concurrent presence of pronounced anxiety, depression, and cognitive impairments was demonstrated (OR = 1.52; p = 0.038; AUC = 0.66). Discussion: In patients with COVID-19, the CALC index may be used for the risk assessment of primary developed mental disturbances in the context of the underlying disease with a diagnostic threshold of seven points.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".