Exploring Post-COVID-19 Functional Outcomes in Residents in Long-Term Care Homes in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on functional outcomes in long-term care (LTC) home residents after COVID-19 infection is limited. In the current study, we examined outcomes in 1,310 LTC residents with a positive COVID-19 test in the period from March 2020 to April 2022 (“COVID” group). We also reviewed outcomes in residents in the same LTC homes without a history of COVID-19 during the same period (“No-COVID” group, n = 2,301). In a retrospective longitudinal design, we explored activities of daily living (ADLs), cognitive function, and clinical care needs over time. Change was assessed from the last assessment before contracting COVID-19 to three assessments subsequent to COVID-19, over on average seven months after infection. We found deterioration over time in ADLs and cognitive performance in both groups. The change in ADLs and clinical care needs was slightly greater in the COVID than the No-COVID group from baseline to the first follow-up assessment; in subsequent assessments, the change was similar in both groups. Overall, we observed similar functional outcomes among surviving residents in the two groups, with initially greater deterioration in ADLs and clinical care needs in residents with a history of COVID-19 followed by a trajectory resembling the one in the No-COVID residents.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".