MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394790228 · doi:10.5144/0256-4947.2024.116

Predicting COVID-19 outcomes with the Edmonton Obesity Staging System

2024· article· en· W4394790228 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
S.Ag. Mohamad Ali, Omar Khan, Amira M. Youssef, Iram Saba, Leena Alqahtani, Renad Abdulaziz Alduhaim, Renad A. Almesned

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Saudi Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)MedicineObesityInternal medicineVirologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)Disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have demonstrated a correlation between a high body mass index and discriminatory COVID-19 outcomes. Studies appear to indicate that there is a correlation between obesity-related comorbidities and less favorable outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of the current investigation is to conduct a thorough assessment of the correlation between BMI and comorbidities associated with obesity, and their potential impact on the severity and consequences of COVID-19 infection among patients receiving care in a tertiary healthcare setting. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTINGS: Tertiary rehabilitation center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included all individuals who received medical treatment and tested positive for COVID-19 by means of RT-PCR during the period from March to September 2020. COVID-19 patients were classified using Edmonton Obesity Staging System (EOSS). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: COVID-19-related complications, including pneumonia and cytokine release syndrome, as well as the time length to COVID-19 negativization. SAMPLE SIZE: 315 patients. RESULTS: The median (25th-75th percentiles) age of the patients was 38 (31.5-49) years old. Males outnumbered females, and 66% of patients were non-Saudis. Forty-eight patients (15.2%) had obesity class I, whereas 13 patients (4.1%) had class II. Thirty-two patients (10.2%) were classified as EOSS stage 1, 105 patients (33.3%) were classified as EOSS stage 2, and 25 patients (7.9%) were assigned to EOSS stage 3. Males predominated in EOSS stages 1 and 2, whereas females predominated in stage 3. In EOSS stage 3, 52% of cases had moderate severity and 48% had severe illness. CONCLUSIONS: EOSS distinguishes the COVID-19 risks of poor outcomes beyond BMI. Patients who were overweight or obese but remained in the stage 1 of the EOSS had a lower risk of a poor COVID-19 outome than normal-weight patients. The health status of obese patients is a more precise indicator of the progression of COVID-19 during hospitalization than BMI alone. LIMITATIONS: Given the limited capacity of urgent care facilities to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of comorbidities and other relevant outcomes in all patients, it is plausible that certain patients may have been erroneously classified with an EOSS stage 2 diagnosis, when in fact they ought to have been assigned a stage 3 diagnosis.

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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.343 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Saudi MedicineSame topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207